[AndyJackson]

our jurisprudence system needs to be cleansed of this idea of “Standing”.

No it doesn't. It is probably abused at this point, but it is an important limit what court's can waste their time on.

[Nervous Tick]

>> It is probably abused at this point, but it is an important limit what court’s can waste their time on.

I can see the potential for abusing overly liberalized standing, too.

Kids bringing lawsuits against oil companies for harming their future through unproven climate change, for instance.

Or persons totally unrelated to you (say, your neighbor’s kid’s teacher) suing to take your guns away because they’re icky.

etc

[SoConPubbie]

No it doesn't. It is probably abused at this point, but it is an important limit what court's can waste their time on.

Well, your problem is that it is being used against us, right and left.

It is being used in an overtly and overly abusive manner to protect the DeepState.

It is the fall-back excuse by our jurisprudence system to silence the Political Right.

So, if as you say, it is necessary, how to you fix the blantant use of this feature so that we get back a system of "Justice for all"?

[Cen-Tejas]

So Con Pubbie used the word “cleansed” regarding “standing”.

In that limited context I agree with him. But, “standing” enables tons of bullshit lawsuits that get filed to be summarily dismissed so from that perspective it is good.

Yes, it works against our side sometimes but you are never going to achieve a PERFECT legal system. Maybe AI will let us get the humans out of the system and get us closer to perfect.

[Gene Eric]

>> our jurisprudence system needs to be cleansed of this idea of “Standing”.

>> No it doesn’t. It is probably abused at this point...

The issue is really judicial activism, and should “standing” go away, another mechanism would be used to achieve a similar form of activism.

If we could point to just one primary contributor of judicial/prosecutorial activism, what would it be?