I’m an attorney too and unlike you I find the evidence attention-getting and the legal issues fascinating. Some enterprisimg 2L on law review could really have some fun doing a thorough exploration of the standing problem. Maybe someone already has. I haven’t poked around in the journals lately. Maybe there’s a CLE that would cover it. Or not. But they are doing more out of the box stuff. Which is good, because I nearly fell asleep during my estates CLE. Just sayin...
Taitz’s strategy all along was to file this case in HI State Court and if thrown out appeal with the 9th Circuit where she already has one case pending (conjoin the cases?). Either way it will not be over in 2 minutes as someone on this thread has claimed...
Yeah, different strokes as they say. I just dn’t see it.
Oh god, I tell ya what I slept through, the Fed Tax portion of BARBRI. Talk about a SNOOOOOOOOOZER.
And, yeah ... CLEs are some good sleeping time. The best I ever took though was early in my career by a Federal Court District Judge that was simply entitled, “how to try a case”. I settled in, ready to snooze and was riveted the entire time. Changed the way I approached litigation and I was so much better as a result. Was a two day seminar ... on the weekend, and I still looked forward to going.
Always nice o meet a fellow “legal traveler”. =)
When your "2L" does write about the subject, I hope you'll think to alert me to it.
IANAL, but I do read. I have O'Brien's two volume Constitutional Law & Politics (3rd Ed.) which gives some hazy ten page survey of "standing," but I'm still not sure how it became cast in Concrete Constitutional Law. And I'm even less sure why liberals should be exempted from the usual standing requirements, e.g., when they want to save snail darters or avoid hearing a Christmas Carol. (I do know Congress has granted them standing in these cases, but I don't see what the moral justification is for left wing causes getting standing and conservative ones not getting it.)
ML/NJ