Replies

"Accordingly, courts have held that, in essence, if everyone has standing, then no one has standing. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds; if an issue affects everyone, it should be resolved by the elected branches."

Not buying it. This is not a legal issue that requires any one citizen to receive redress. It by its very nature affects all citizens so indeed, all citizens have standing and any resulting remedy is applicable to all citizens. No conflict there. The elected branches are not disinterested parties in this case. They have a massive and self interested dog in this fight. The judiciary should be placing themselves squarely into the middle of this issue. That's what they were set up to do.

"Accordingly, courts have held that, in essence, if everyone has standing, then no one has standing."

By the way, does this make any kind of sense to anyone else here? So if every parent in the country had a child murdered by an uber serial killer they would have no case in court?

"Accordingly, courts have held that, in essence, if everyone has standing, then no one has standing. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds; if an issue affects everyone, it should be resolved by the elected branches."

Which courts and by what right did they sight to make this tyrannical decision?