Posted on 10/20/2022 2:16:11 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
If taxpayers don’t have standing to bring this up about how taxes are doled out illegally by the executive branch,
Theres no reason to remain a taxpayer.
Most Freepers seem to hate lawyers and don’t want them near the GOP
Taxpayers have never had standing to generally object to expenditures. The rules of standing require that you have a particularized injury from the challenged action, more specific than the atomized impact on the general revenue taxpayer.
As Ted Cruz, no stranger to Supreme Court litigation, observed - this one is going to have a tough time with standing.
Justice Barrett was applying the consistent standing doctrine, and this says nothing at all about the merits of the arguments that would have been presented.
I think it falls on separation of powers - but getting there will be a challenge.
Not surprised.
Conservative residents of the 50 states also do not have standing to sue after obvious voter fraud in their own states.
I wonder if Democrat residents have standing if their states vote to secede from the former United States of America?
“Why didn’t they have standing, and who would have standing?”
Well the ones with standing would be those with college loans that they did not wish to be forgiven. LOL
As a lawyer on the right, I can tell you that in order to have "standing" the litigant must suffer a real harm that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large. In this case, the harm suffered by the Wisconsin taxpayers group is no different than the harm suffered by every other taxpayer, and therefore, they lack standing to sue. This is basic to all federal litigation and has nothing to do with Rat vs. Rhino vs. Conservative.
The law doesn't work that way. The Supreme Court almost always lets the lower courts handle its cases. The law doesn't move quickly and never has.
The language in “Flast v Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 may provide some insight as to why Justice Barrett made the correct but unfortunate decision:
The nexus demanded of federal taxpayers has two aspects to it. First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 (1952). Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. When both nexuses are established, the litigant will have shown a taxpayer’s stake in the outcome of the controversy, and will be a proper and appropriate party to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction.
Page 392 U. S. 103
Also see, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
Careful...
Thinking for yourself is definitely a federal offense!
Another Bushie strikes again.
The action complained about is an Executive Order by FJB. Taxpayers do not have standing. The only persons with standing to challenge an EO are members of congress, and yes, it would be about separation of powers. Mainly that FJB usurped federal legislative power by constructively “spending” federal money. The only branch that can spend money is congress.
Yes, they are able & Yes, they are able. Congress persons are the ONLY ones with standing to challenge an Executive Order.
Well the Hero's Act suggests otherwise. GWB the Shrub and a Republican Congress screwed the pooch, as always.
The decision in question regards an arbitrary federal Executive action.
“As a lawyer on the right, I can tell you that in order to have “standing” the litigant must suffer a real harm that is distinct from the harm suffered by the public at large. In this case, the harm suffered by the Wisconsin taxpayers group is no different than the harm suffered by every other taxpayer, and therefore, they lack standing to sue. This is basic to all federal litigation and has nothing to do with Rat vs. Rhino vs. Conservative.”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Thank you for that, really. No sarcasm here.
So, in your opinion, who WOULD have standing, and how should they go about using the courts to reverse this?
“Now there is a PRECEDENT….NOT president. €¥<*%=!!!!
I wonder if once the republicans get in they can claw the money back.
LOL That sounds about right.
I think surely the 6 states that are suing must have standing.
Congress would have standing but is controlled by Democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.