Gwinnett College Supreme Court Ruling: Read It For Yourself

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home.

Related Post Roulette

3 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    So Roberts dissent was one of mootness, and not on the legal or constitutional principles involved. I can respect that, even if I disagree with it.Report

  2. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    Burnishing his “lack of standing” and “moot” positions for the difficult cases ahead where he needs an outcome, but has not a reasoned path to get there.Report

  3. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    I wonder why anyone bothered. Thirty-odd years ago, defense lawyers were always afraid of $1 and fees awards, where the plaintiff gets a buck for making his or her point, nothing for any actual injuries, and a big, fat award of fees for the plaintiff’s lawyers. Eventually, the Supremes decided, in Farrar v. Hobby, that even though a plaintiff who got nothing more than a dollar in nominal damages was, technically, a “prevailing party,” entitled to a “reasonable attorney’s fee,” the reasonable attorney’s fee in a $1 nominal damages case was, presumptively, zero. Something must be going on here, but what?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *