You simply have to prove that a court case is /likely/ to produce a result in remedy for your case.
I think the actual definition of standing in a legal dictionary is pretty vague. In practice it's almost always proving that you have been or would be harmed. But proving that you would be harmed in the future is often difficult so then it requires waiting for the harm to happen first. Wikipedia's definition is therefore a good one in practice:
"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
Courts are about remedies. If there is no remedy for you then why are you wasting their time?
Courts shouldn't just be about remedies. If I see someone murder someone else and have evidence beyond reasonable doubt then I want the murderer punished because that's justice and it benefits society. Courts should be about justice first and foremost. If courts are only about remedies then there can be no case against he that murders a hermit with no family or he that stole an election 20 years ago. But justice demands punishment and that punishment deters evil.
It would clog the courts to the point of uselessness
Do you really think that's an insurmountable problem? We couldn't possibly fix this problem by changing the nature of the legal system? Say by having a lot more judges and less bureaucracy? Is it any wonder that it's so difficult to get your fair say in court when the current system is scared to death of too many court cases? This fear incentivizes making lawsuits expensive, onerous and rushed with little oversight and judges getting away with murder (figuratively).
I imagine 1000 years ago the great legal minds would talk similarly to you, saying that we can't possibly let peasants bring lawsuits, as it would overwhelm the system with frivolous cases.
I think the actual definition of standing in a legal dictionary is pretty vague. In practice it's almost always proving that you have been or would be harmed. But proving that you would be harmed in the future is often difficult so then it requires waiting for the harm to happen first. Wikipedia's definition is therefore a good one in practice:
"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case."
Courts shouldn't just be about remedies. If I see someone murder someone else and have evidence beyond reasonable doubt then I want the murderer punished because that's justice and it benefits society. Courts should be about justice first and foremost. If courts are only about remedies then there can be no case against he that murders a hermit with no family or he that stole an election 20 years ago. But justice demands punishment and that punishment deters evil.
Do you really think that's an insurmountable problem? We couldn't possibly fix this problem by changing the nature of the legal system? Say by having a lot more judges and less bureaucracy? Is it any wonder that it's so difficult to get your fair say in court when the current system is scared to death of too many court cases? This fear incentivizes making lawsuits expensive, onerous and rushed with little oversight and judges getting away with murder (figuratively).
I imagine 1000 years ago the great legal minds would talk similarly to you, saying that we can't possibly let peasants bring lawsuits, as it would overwhelm the system with frivolous cases.