“We’re Nuts Daily” doesn’t make an attempt at getting things right. Any legal case they review will confuse them, since logic and law are meaningless to nuts.
Part of the decision being appealed:
“Article III Standing
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
Plaintiffs assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an injury in fact as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.
An injury in fact is defined as an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ...and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be concrete and particularized to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson,
Plaintiffs cite a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), for the proposition that there are exceptions to the standing requirement at issue here. The Court wishes to clarify that Plaintiffs are asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction and consequently the various state court jurisdictional doctrines are inapplicable to this case.
418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633 (1937). As the Court explained in Schlesinger,
We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.”
About the kind of ignorant comment that constantly flows from your keyboard.
You ought to have it checked.
.