Legal Bros: does this seem like a proper use of "standing", or is it bullshit?
(www.zerohedge.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
Standing pretty much never not bullshit. At least when it comes to high profile cases. Another means for the system to avoid inconvenient cases.
It's particularly egregious here; they've created an impenetrable shield around government censorship:
1 - You can't sue the government because you haven't proved that they censored anyone. First you have to sue the third parties who did the censoring.
2 - You can't sue a third party for censorship because it's not illegal for the third party to censor.
3 - You can't sue anybody.
This right here. Without going into explicit detail, I was part of a case against the federal government thrown out because there wasn't standing yet (even though the negative impact, or harm, was imminent, it hadn't happened yet). After the government took final action and there was clear harm with no further recourse, it was thrown out again for Cheveron deference (the court has to defer to the federal agency that wronged you because they're the "experts," and of course the agency you're suing is going to say they're right).
It's next to impossible to sue the government, because you need to carefully stand up dominos to make the perfect case, and then have pockets deep enough to roll the dice on taking the case all the way.
There are four boxes. Third is "jury". When do we start using the fourth and last box?