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

To: El Sordo

It means that you suffer personal material harm which means that you have a legitimate interest in seeing a legal request be acted upon by the judiciary.

Layman’s terms.

God knows that things that affect EVERYBODY aren’t worthy of judicial attention. cough.

I actually wonder what whistle-blower laws would say about all this.


26 posted on 02/19/2010 10:18:23 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion; MissTickly

Stolen from another poster (as in, not my words, but I think they are a clear explanation so I will swipe them):

Standing is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. It is a very important concept, without which courts would drown under the weight of cases they can’t meaningfully resolve. Too many people think a court is like Solomon—you go to it for a decision on anything that bugs you. Courts are actually an administrative mechanism for resolving technical legal disputes that can be framed in specific ways.

There are three standing requirements:

(1) Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

(2) Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.

(3) Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.

The cases to date have not met those requirements, and have rightfully been dismissed. Most particualrly, they have proposed some abstract injury. Too many proponents fail to appreciate that point because they confuse the idea that they, as citizens, have the right to question their leaders with the technical issue of standing in a specific legal case.


37 posted on 02/19/2010 10:30:09 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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