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

Skip to comments.

The "Doctrine Of Standing" - What A Crock !!!
Self | 6/27/13 | Self

Posted on 06/26/2013 10:30:34 PM PDT by Lmo56

Prior to the creation of the Doctrine of Standing, all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. The doctrine began its existence in the 1920’s with either Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), or Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) – depending on how you look at it.

It has become a convenient way for the courts to avoid making decisions on controversial cases.

Case in point, today’s [non] decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The majority opinion stated the following and used it in its reasoning to deny the petitioners standing:

”(2) Petitioners contend the California Supreme Court’s determination that they were authorized under California law to assert the State’s interest in the validity of Proposition 8 means that they “need no more show a personal injury, separate from the State’s indisputa¬ble interest in the validity of its law, than would California’s Attor¬ney General or did the legislative leaders held to have standing in Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72 (1987).” Reply Brief 6. But far from supporting petitioners’ standing, Karcher is compelling precedent against it. In that case, after the New Jersey attorney general re¬fused to defend the constitutionality of a state law, leaders of New Jersey’s Legislature were permitted to appear, in their official capaci¬ties, in the District Court and Court of Appeals to defend the law. What is significant about Karcher, however, is what happened after the Court of Appeals decision. The legislators lost their leadership positions, but nevertheless sought to appeal to this Court. The Court held that they could not do so. Although they could participate in the lawsuit in their official capacities as presiding officers of the legisla¬ture, as soon as they lost that capacity, they lost standing. Id., at 81. Petitioners here hold no office and have always participated in this litigation solely as private parties.”

In Karcher, SCOTUS recognized the fact that state court’s can certify other parties to join in a cause of action when state officials decline to appeal. However, SCOTUS ruled [in Karcher] that the other parties had been certified to join the cause of action as leadership officials of the NJ state legislature. When they lost and attempted to appeal, they were denied standing by SCOTUS – since they had lost their leadership positions in the interim.

In Perry v. Brown [precursor to today’s decision], the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the CA Supreme Court as to whether other parties could join the cause of action.

FYI: When a certified question is made by a U.S. federal court, when confronted with real cases or controversies in which the federal court's decision will turn in part on a question of state law, it will ask the highest court of the relevant state to give an authoritative answer to the state-law question, which the federal court will then apply to its resolution of the federal case.

The CA State Supreme Court replied to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the affirmative. Hollingsworth was then certified as an Official Proponent of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Brown, did have standing, and could join the cause of action. When the case was lost, Hollingsworth appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc hearing – but was refused. This set the stage for the appeal to SCOTUS.

In today’s ruling, SCOTUS rejected the CA State Supreme Court’s determination that Hollingsworth had standing. I do not think that this is something that it can legally [and morally] do. Unlike the determination in Karcher, Hollingsworth’s status [as determined by the CA State Supreme Court] HAD NOT changed. HOWEVER, invalidating the CA State Supreme Court's certification of the question was the ONLY way that SCOTUS could weasely justify its decision.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: prop8; scotus; scotusprop8; standing

1 posted on 06/26/2013 10:30:35 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
The California Proposition process had already become a joke. Now it is out-and-out Kabuki theatre.

It was bad enough to have to wade through the thousands of hours of bad TV commercials, stacks of junk mail, and hoards of skanky petitioners when I knew that every once and a while a good proposition might accidentally get put into law and stay there.

But now any possible proposition I could imagine supporting that might by miracle become law, will almost certainly be challenged and be overturned for lack of official support.

2 posted on 06/26/2013 10:37:40 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
But now any possible proposition I could imagine supporting that might by miracle become law, will almost certainly be challenged and be overturned for lack of official support.

What I am afraid of is this:

Lets say that a controversial [but VERY popular] Prop is passed with like 90% approval by the voters.

Lets also say that the Prop is found to be unconstitutional in a lower court.

If the state AG declines to appeal - NO ONE HAS STANDING !!!

That is the TRUE impact of today's ruling ...

3 posted on 06/26/2013 10:42:51 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Judicial tyranny. The people of California who voted for Prop 8 have effectively been disenfranchised, but who gives a f***....


4 posted on 06/26/2013 10:44:55 PM PDT by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
Judicial tyranny. The people of California who voted for Prop 8 have effectively been disenfranchised, but who gives a f***....

SCOTUS should have left Prop 8 in place and tell the people of CA that they can repeal it by initiative at the ballot box, if they want.

5 posted on 06/26/2013 10:50:50 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

So, who does have standing that could reopen the case?


6 posted on 06/26/2013 10:55:12 PM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Too much deep thinking.

I think all good Christians, Jews, Hindu’s and all others should remove ourselves from the system.

That is, we don’t sign a contract with the government sanctifying our union.

We bring it back to the Church/Temple/Synagogue, etc and make our commitment a private matter.

If one wants to create a contract of the union then we should have no problem with Pre-Nups and I’m completely okay with that thought and process.

We don’t need to self identify as Parent 1/Parent 2 or Husband and Husband.

They don’t own the definitions of words or natural laws.

Don’t care if two gays decide they are for each other and think of themselves as life partners. It’s their decision and commitment.

But, I am not going to sacrifice the word “Marriage” to placate their horny desires.

Hell, if the law insists on co-opting words, terms and phrases that have, historically, had the contextual meaning of man and woman, then I say we change the game on their terms.

“Oh, so you want to be married? I mean, as a gay couple?”

“No Problemo, we are ....dangit...had a thought here and can’t remember how I was going to challenge and change to argument and definitions.

It’ll pop back into my Paleolithic head later....


7 posted on 06/26/2013 10:57:43 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Where I live, we seldom have referendums (propositions). In fact, I can’t remember the last time we had a referendum on the ballot. Now I know why. They are useless if someone who is displeased with the outcome can litigate on and on until that person gets the result he/she wants. And defending these referendums in court can bankrupt the cities and states.


8 posted on 06/26/2013 10:59:25 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I do not object to courts not granting standing to just anyone, but in the case of referenda enacted law I think they are way off. Something is done via referendum usually because elected politicians don’t want to do it.

So the way the court left things today is anytime the people vote to do something the politicians don’t want to do, the politicians just need to get a stalking horse to sue them, find one court to declare it unconstitutional and then not appeal. Basically, referendums are dead as a way to force representative government to work.


9 posted on 06/26/2013 11:03:59 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
So, who does have standing that could reopen the case?

No one. Prior to the 1920's, there was no issue of Standing. Anyone could bring a private action against a public right.

Now, you have to kiss the Poobahs' [SCOTUS'] asses in order to be heard.

Short of a Constitutional Amendment, nothing to be done ...

10 posted on 06/26/2013 11:10:17 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JLS
Any challenge [for or against] to a properly approved referendum [voted on by the people] should be allowed.

Perry was allowed standing and won in the lower court and Hollingsworth was a part of that - but Hollingsworth was NOT allowed standing to appeal. Since he/she was par of the original lower court ruling, he/she should have been allowed.

Stacking the deck is just WRONG ...

11 posted on 06/26/2013 11:17:25 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Standing originates in the concept of harm. A Plaintiff has to demonstrate how their rights are, or better 'have been,' harmed by legislation.

But it's a topic I would like to know more about.

12 posted on 06/26/2013 11:30:06 PM PDT by Prospero (Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
Standing originates in the concept of harm.

Prior to the 1920's NO private action that concerned a public right was refused. SCOTUS then developed a 3-pronged test to see if a potential litigant qualified.

Problem is that the requirements are ambiguous [at best] and generally left up to the trial court on a case-by-case basis.

AND, if the trial court happens to be SCOTUS, there is NO RECOURSE [to a higher court] for an adverse standing ruling.

13 posted on 06/26/2013 11:43:10 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

What is mind-boggling is that the USSC has decided that “We the People” have no standing in court, when in fact it was “We the People” who created the courts in the first place. If allowed to stand this decision is, in effect, a usurpation of power not granted to the government by the people.

This is, IMO, the first concrete act of tyranny since Woodrow Wilson’s dreams over 100 years ago.


14 posted on 06/26/2013 11:47:17 PM PDT by logos (Only an educated intellectual will consistently misread plain language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

The women of California in a class action suit would seem to have the most standing of any group or individual defending DOMA.


15 posted on 06/27/2013 12:04:26 AM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logos
The Robert's court is grabbing power from the legislative branch. He rewrote the Healthcare nonsense and now declares the legislative branch has no standing with the executive branch if the executive branch refuses to follow the law. The legislative branch has the power to override the executive branch. If the executive branch is not doing it's job, the judicial branch under the Constitution has to rule for the legislative branch over the executive branch. CA prop 9 is the law. It can't be struck down just because the executive branch doesn't like it. Roberts again is legislating from the bench.
16 posted on 06/27/2013 1:29:52 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

Begin the petitions to the state governments requiring the impeachments of the members of the U.S. Senate and SCOTUS responsible for their failures to comply with their oaths of office affirming their obligations to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Begin with meetings of fellow citizens at precinct, town hall, and county meetings.


17 posted on 06/27/2013 2:11:35 AM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Who needs an act of Congress to violate the first amendment when you have the SCOTUS more than willing to do it for you?

They’re not chipping away at these inconvenient roadblocks to federal power anymore: they’re blasting away at them.


18 posted on 06/27/2013 2:15:06 AM PDT by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

True, this is legislation from the bench; sadly, that’s not a new thing. What is new is that “We the People” have been disenfranchised, told in effect “You can no longer petition the Court for redress”. Used as legal precedent, this ruling changes US citizens to subjects.

One more stolen election, and there will be only one recourse.


19 posted on 06/27/2013 2:50:39 AM PDT by logos (Only an educated intellectual will consistently misread plain language.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Bkmk


20 posted on 06/27/2013 3:22:27 AM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

History shows that when people lose the right to petition the government with words, then they will use the sword.


21 posted on 06/27/2013 5:04:12 AM PDT by sergeantdave (No, I don't have links for everything I post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Prior to 1920?

One has to wonder what changed.

“Subject to the Jurisdiction”

Who is ‘SUBJECTED’ and to what ‘JURISDICTION’?


The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited

First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:

Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside...”

Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...”

Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat obfuscatory.

Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.

The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.

The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.

(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the United States).

In regard to persons born in the United States there are two criteria which must be met and complied with in order for persons born in the United States to be designated as citizens of the United States, and the second of the two preclude such citizenship from being “automatic” or based on the mere “accident” (or contrivance, as in the case of so called “anchor babies”), of the persons birth in the United States. The two required criteria are (1), that the persons be born in the United States (obvious), and, (2) that the born in the United States must also be subject to the jurisdiction thereof (this criteria is universally, incorrectly and
erroneously presumed - read on:).

This second criteria is not and cannot be met merely by the location of the persons birth, because, as set forth in the Fourth Article of Fourteenth Amendment, there is a requirement that citizens of the United States not question the validity of the national debt. This mandated provision clearly constitutes a condition of servitude, therefore, in deference to and in recognition of the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment, it becomes abundantly clear that a person’s birth in the United States, by itself, does NOT and cannot establish U.S. citizenship. Please read on:

An examination of the two subject amendments will expose a diabolical plot; understand that the same legislators who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment had, two years earlier, also written the Thirteenth Amendment, wherein these same legislators prohibited involuntary servitude - I am not aware of any claim by anyone or any court that the Fourteenth Amendment in any way revoked or abolished any of the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Bearing in mind that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude; and while keeping this thought in mind, then consider this wording contained in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment, (in reference to citizens of the United States):

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”,

Or, to paraphrase the relevant part, “Citizens of the United States shall not complain about being required to pay the public debt of the United States, authorized by law...”.

Or, to cut to the chase, “Citizens of the United States - SHUT UP and PAY UP!!”

As paraphrased (but NOT wrongly interpreted), it becomes abundantly clear and indisputable that this mandate in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutes a condition of servitude - that is, U.S. citizenship constitutes a condition of servitude - and, because of the prohibition of involuntary servitude in the Thirteenth Amendment, US citizenship must be voluntarily entered into and cannot be acquired merely by birth.

So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case). If those legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as follows:

“All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering, such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt thereof, without complaint.”

The opening clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized, “. Bear in mind that those who were held in slavery had been kidnapped in their homeland and drug to the United States against their will, in chains, and then forced into slavery for many generations. Such acts as these, perpetrated on these innocent kidnapped Africans, could not in any way be expected to engender an attitude of gratitude and loyalty to the Government of the United States - what would be your attitude if you were among those who were freed at the end of Lincoln’s unconstitutional and undeclared war (just in case you thought Bush was the first to ignore the applicable Constitutional provisions)??

Due to the conditions the African slaves had been subjected to preceding their emancipation, the former slaves had every reason to despise the United States. Additionally, naturalization (also included in the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), requires a renunciation of the candidates former foreign sovereign and a willingness to take an oath swearing an allegiance to the United States. Naturalization requires a study of and a knowledge of the Constitution. The vast majority of the former slaves were totally illiterate, so, for the most part, none of them were in any way desirable as candidates for naturalization and it would have been ludicrous to expect that any of them would seek naturalization, and I am not aware of even one instance where such occurred. And none of this has even the slightest bearing on the fact that the former slaves were black.

In response to the foregoing there are those who claim that the former slaves gained U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment because, during the so called reconstruction period, imposed upon the Southern States after the end of Lincoln’s illegal war, the former slaves were then under the jurisdiction of the United States and that is what made them U.S. citizens. This claim is spurious at best as the purported applicable clause of the Fourteenth Amendment addressing “those persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the United States]”, is specifically limited to and is only applicable to those persons BORN in the United States - and is not applicable those who found themselves under the jurisdiction thereof due to the result of an unconstitutional and illegal war. (All of the adult former slaves had been born (albeit - as a result of kidnapping), under the jurisdiction of the (southern) state wherein they were born. Some may have even been born in a foreign country where from they were kidnapped).

As to those babies actually born of freed slaves during the so called reconstruction period, such children could still not be classified as citizens of the United States (due to their birth) because of the servitude mandated in the Fourth Article of the Fourteenth Amendment as a specific condition of U.S. citizenship; all this in deference to the prohibition of involuntary servitude of the Thirteenth Amendment. Before such children could become U.S. citizens they would have to wait until they reached the age of reason and then they would have to volunteer themselves into such status. I contend that none ever did so, certainly not knowingly.

I cannot imagine that any sane former slave who fully understood the provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments would freely volunteer into a condition of servitude which is part and parcel of United States citizenship. For that matter, neither can I imagine such would be the freewill choice of any sane white person born in the United States (this disparagement is not in any way applicable to foreign nationals who immigrate to the U.S. and apply for naturalization).

Having unraveled the insidious intent hidden in the Fourteenth Amendment it becomes abundantly clear that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was/is to con persons of all races into volunteering themselves into a condition of servitude under the jurisdiction of the United States

There is widespread belief that the purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a citizenship status for the freed slaves and at the time of the promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment such purpose was even publicly claimed by those who drafted the citizenship clauses - but if such was the case then why is any suggestion or implication thereof totally absent from the said clauses?? Why did the framers thereof not write:

“All persons born in the United States or any territory thereof, or born in any of the several states, being of African extraction, who desire to become citizens hereof, shall be accorded every opportunity to meet and comply with the rules of naturalization on the same basis of any white immigrant, without any restriction due to their former condition of involuntary servitude or slavery, nor shall such applicants be subject to any naturalization quotas.”

And, just to make sure that it is clearly understood, there is no such thing as an “anchor baby” (babies born in the United States of illegal alien mothers).

So, if persons born in the United States do not volunteer into U.S. citizen servitude status - what then is their political status??

Well, as for me, I am of the Posterity of the People of the United States. “People of the United States” and “citizen of the United States” are not in any way the same!!! This begs an examination as to what it is that constitutes a republican form of government - and that will be the subject of a future discussion.

I suggest skeptics read Chief Justice John Jay’s dicta in Chisholm vs. Georgia (2US 419 - 1794), the Preamble to the Constitution, and the First and Second amendments, paying particular attention to the use of the words “joint tenants in the sovereignty”, “people”, “ourselves and our posterity”, and, the absence of the word “citizen”

Cheers,

Eric Williams


22 posted on 06/27/2013 5:40:34 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X6b4YrXayzE


23 posted on 06/27/2013 5:41:57 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X6b4YrXayzE


24 posted on 06/27/2013 5:43:02 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

“The 1st section of the 14th article [Fourteenth Amendment], to which our attention is more specifically invited, opens with a definition of citizenship—not only citizenship of the United States[***], but citizenship of the states. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States[***] except as he was a citizen of one of the states composing the Union. Those therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the territories [STATUTORY citizens], though within the United States[*], were not [CONSTITUTIONAL] citizens.”
[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394(1873)]


25 posted on 06/27/2013 5:43:19 AM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I don’t have kids in public school, but I have standing when the property tax needs paying.


26 posted on 06/27/2013 5:45:10 AM PDT by HomeAtLast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
In addition to them using 'standing' to avoid making rulings they don't want to make, it also gives them the ability to completely ignore all facts relevant to a case. In no case that has attempted to establish Obozo's qualification for office, have the facts been considered in a decision. Everything has revolved around procedure and standing. Any time this is true, you can be sure the government doesn't have the facts on its side.
27 posted on 06/27/2013 6:15:42 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Supposedly in order to have standing one has to show that they are being materially hurt by something.

I believe that Christian owned businesses that supply products and services to weddings will be hurt. They will either be forced to supply gay weddings or else they will be sued out of existence.

Unfortunately other recent rulings suggest that even if a five year old can anticipate such problems we have to wait until something actually happens until the person magically gains standing.

For example, as soon as the mayor of New York pushed through his law to limit the size of sodas everyone pretty much knew what the economic impacts would be. Someone should have been able to sue immediately so that the law could have been eliminated before it went into effect. That way stores wouldn't have to take on the expense of buying more smaller sized cups, adjusting their inventories, etc.

Instead everyone had to wait until the law went into effect and all of those shop owners had to make a guess as to which way the courts would go. I'm certain that lots of stores lost money guessing incorrectly.

Even if we lived in a normal world where people could bring a case in favor or against a law before they were directly affected, I'm afraid in this case even those that will be harmed will be said to have no case at all.

After all, there were probably hotels or restaurants that shut down rather than serve Blacks when the Civil Rights Act was past. So there will be a bunch of businesses that shut down or move into the shadows when gays try to use their services. I am definitely not saying that "gay rights" are on a par with equal justice regardless of skin color, but our opponents definitely believe that way and will act and litigate accordingly.

28 posted on 06/27/2013 7:10:19 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
This is a useful and welcome thread, and a great post with reservations.

Although the subject is screaming for close scrutiny, and perhaps a Constitutional Amendment, it does not serve the discussion well for posters (legal experts or not) to lose control of the English language.
Specially in things legal, a misplaced comma or apostrophe can change the entire meaning from what was intended. *

In Paragraph 5 of the article, "In Karcher, SCOTUS recognized the fact that state court’s can certify..." is the word intended courts? or court's?
It matters.

* There has been a raging debate forever, as to whether the Second Amendment, as ratified, has or does not have a comma in the proper place to convey the originally intended meaning and purpose.
In the Age before duplicators or copiers, documents had to be copied by hand, and the error checking was not perfect. As a result, copies sent to all the colonies and commonwealths involved in the union, were not really identical.
The Second Amendment debate, as a result, continues to this day.

29 posted on 06/27/2013 10:25:02 AM PDT by publius911 (Look for the Union label, then buy something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56; null and void; Seizethecarp; WildHighlander57; Las Vegas Ron; thecodont; GregNH; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The "Doctrine Of Standing" - What A Crock !!! .

30 posted on 06/28/2013 12:08:36 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

BUMP!


31 posted on 06/28/2013 12:18:09 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (The RINO/amnesty argument goes like this: 1) If we pander to Hispanics, we will save the GOP, at le)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Prospero; Lmo56
"A Plaintiff has to demonstrate how their rights are, or better 'have been,' harmed by legislation."

Their vote was nullified...by a judge who had a clear conflict of interest.

How's that for an injury?

32 posted on 06/28/2013 12:37:47 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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