Replies

“Your misunderstanding of standing is pathetic. Do you even know what standing in a court of law means? It means you could be damaged.”

Yes, I have litigated the concept of standing and through the law firm I did the work on, I have appeals pending in US Court of Appeals right now.

I just authored a friend of the court brief in the US Supreme Court challenging standing.

The concept of standing is a complete fabrication by the courts. They say it comes from the Constitution, but it does not. Judges just made it up.

And judges have made inconsistent rulings and it has gotten worse and worse. It is all wrong and needs to be reformed, as Judge Janice Rogers Brown forcefully argued in Arpaio v. Obama on amnesty.

But you are wrong when you say that standing means you “COULD” be damaged.

That is not enough.

Now, I agree that judges just made these rules up out of the clear blue sky and they need to be repealed by Congress.

But you must show IMMEDIATE injury “in fact”

You cannot show that you “COULD” be damaged.

You have to show that you WILL be damaged.

It is a very high hurdle. For example, Sheriff Arpaio was found not to have standing to challenge Obama’s amnesty despite proving that it cost him over $9 million to house illegal aliens who keep coming back again and again in his jails.

“too speculative’ the D.C. Circuit said.

The US Supreme Court refused to take that appeal, although they did take the appeal from Texas v. United States.

So the problem with standing as to who is a natural born citizen is that if you don’t like Ted Cruz, don’t vote for him. That’s how the courts analyze it.

In effect, you (a plaintiff) are trying to DEPRIVE OTHER VOTERS of their choice to vote for a candidate.

You (a plaintiff) are asserting standing to DENY SOMEONE ELSE their vote.