USSC punts on government censorship issue?

By a 6-3 margin, the court decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

This is getting a lot of buzz, because it was highly anticipated. Perhaps it is just me, but generally a lack of standing is figured out pretty quickly and is not something we are used to seeing during the stretch run of these bigger rulings. I might go so far as to say it is unusual that they get enough judges to sign on to hear the case, and then after that they decide that the case has no standing to bring. It also is odd that standing is something for the USSC to consider after it has already made it's way through the various courts. But to some degree the lack of standing comes from the idea that the censorship in question is no longer happening and to some degree this fact makes the case moot. Perhaps it is just the timing of how old the facts of this case really are. I don't know. Sometimes these decisions are mindboggling.

The underlying concept here is that the issue is still unresolved going into another election season. This means open season moving forward. They court could have ruled and probably should have. I have no doubt that at least three of the six members of the majority would have ruled in favor of Government controlled censorship, but I wonder why the other three refused to take a stand? Was it because they were also on the side of the Government but didn't want to come right out and say it, was there really serious issues with the standing in this particular case, or are they just cowards who didn't want to take another big stand in a docket of big cases.