[jcsjcm]

I found this posted on another board and it made sense. What do you think?

If every case is getting tossed due to “lack of standing” why don’t the lawyers speak with the families of the soldiers who have died as a result of Obama’s mismanagement of the Afghan war? Certainly, they have been directly harmed by the Usurper in Chief!

The Supreme Court has refined this inquiry to three requirements, each of which is essential to confer standing on a plaintiff. Id. First, a plaintiff must show they have suffered in injury-in-fact. Id. This means that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. Id. Second, the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant. And finally, it must be likely that a decision in the plaintiff’s favor will redress the injury. Id.

I would say that the families of these fine young men and women that have served and died since Obama took over would have standing.

[STARWISE]

You’re reading my mind. That was
my very thought last night. Why
don’t you ask Donofrio ?

[Lurking Libertarian]

If every case is getting tossed due to “lack of standing” why don’t the lawyers speak with the families of the soldiers who have died as a result of Obama’s mismanagement of the Afghan war? Certainly, they have been directly harmed by the Usurper in Chief!

That tactic did not work in the 1960s whan protestors tried to get the Supreme Court to hear cases on the constitutionality of the Vietnam War.