Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmericanVictory; rxsid
“There is not a shred of legal authority that supports your wrong contention that standing is an element of a claim.”

I never said that “standing is an element of a claim.”

"Failure to state a claim" as found by Robertson, equals "failure to gain standing".

A plaintiff must have a justiciable claim to have standing, so it is having a justiciable claim that is an element of standing.

A plaintiff's case will be dismissed, as Hollister's was, for failure to state a claim that the court can adjudicate.

You are making the erroneous claim that Robertson granted Hollister standing merely by affirming that his court had jurisdiction. This is false. A court can't reach a determination of a particular plaintiff's standing, without first reaching a determination that the court has general jurisdiction over the type of case or controversy.

That is all that Robertson did. He found general jurisdiction but not specific jurisdiction for Hollister's claims because Hollister failed to state a justiciable claim. If Hollister had made a justiciable claim of an injury in fact that the court could rule to be legitimate, the case would have gone to trial. It did not.

(The real lawyers are doubtless rolling on the floor laughing by now! All corrections from lawyers are welcome.) BTW, this same issue was before Judge Carter. Keyes claimed an injury in fact from being on the ballot with an ineligible candidate, and there was extensive discussion at the Oct. 5 hearing on the issue over whether Keyes was entitled to standing on that issue. Carter said it was not clear where to draw the line on injury in fact when Keyes prospects of winning were so tiny. In the end Judge Carter denied standing and dismissed the case due to failure to state a claim.

150 posted on 01/12/2010 3:10:28 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]


To: Seizethecarp

Lack of a claim is lack of a claim. By the cases I pointed out it is not an element of standing. As the Supreme Court has clearly said lack of a claim is not standing or part of standing. If there is laughter it wouild be at yourself. Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject. Judges look at whether they have jurisdiction, which necessarily involves considering standing, then they look to see if there is a claim. They do not analyze the claim and then extrapolate from that to standing. For one thing, jurisdiction and standing analyses are under 12(b)(1) not 12(b)(6). The former goes outside the pleading the latter analysis does not except for taking judicial notice. If you were an experienced federral litigator you would have to know that.


151 posted on 01/12/2010 4:32:33 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]

To: Seizethecarp

Lack of a claim is lack of a claim. By the cases I pointed out it is not an element of standing. As the Supreme Court has clearly said lack of a claim is not standing or part of standing. If there is laughter it wouild be at yourself. Have you ever actually litigated a constitutional case? As, you put it, a “real lawyer,” I have won cert in one, one that involved an election in fact. But obviously you know better than the Supreme Court because you know that lack of claim focuses on the litigant rather than the merits of what is claimed, unlike every reported case on the subject. Judges look at whether they have jurisdiction, which necessarily involves considering standing, then they look to see if there is a claim. They do not analyze the claim and then extrapolate from that to standing. For one thing, jurisdiction and standing analyses are under 12(b)(1) not 12(b)(6). The former goes outside the pleading the latter analysis does not except for taking judicial notice. If you were an experienced federral litigator you would have to know that.


152 posted on 01/12/2010 4:32:42 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson