“Standing” again. This utterly absurd legal concept must be significantly revised. It is the root of 90% of the bad judgments coming out of all courts.
“Standing” again. This utterly absurd legal concept must be significantly revised. It is the root of 90% of the bad judgments coming out of all courts.
While I understand your frustration, “standing” is a fundamental element of our legal system. Standing merely requires a showing that the parties in court are actually people who have sustained some direct harm from the action being contested. Absent a government silent on all matters, standing requires a showing of harm for the government’s speech or action.
You are right.
Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would agree:
"Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined...This evidence was more than sufficient to establish Hines’s standing to sue… and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito added. “The court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think..." Alito's dissent