“Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
‘That’s some catch, that Catch-22,’ he observed.
‘It’s the best there is,’ Doc Daneeka agreed.
Yossarian saw it clearly in all its spinning reasonableness. There was an elliptical precision about its perfect pairs of parts that was graceful and shocking, like good modern art, and at times Yossarian wasn’t quite sure he saw it at all, just the way he was never quite sure about good modern art or about the flies Orr saw in Appleby’s eyes. he had Orr’s word to take for Appleby’s eyes.”
I had trouble understanding standing in law school, I still don’t understand it. My problem was and is to think of standing as a legal term, where you have “openers” as in a poker game.
Standing, as used by this SCOTUS, and all others is a political term that says, go away, we’re not going to get involved.
We do “surveys” which is to collect opinions from any court, state or federal, on a particular legal principle and compare out comes. They should roughly follow a precedent, usually loosely but fact patterns vary.
Except when you survey standing, you’ll find almost as many opposing opinion as concurring ones.
Think of standing as an excuse to bail. To debate it otherwise is a fools game.