Skip to main content

View Diary: S. J. Res. 46 (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Because Article III courts only have jurisdiction over live cases and controversies, and to have that a plaintiff must allege

    (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

    Otherwise, the courts would be flooded with bullshit.

    •  what case is that from? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

      by mdsiamese on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 03:54:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I understand that (0+ / 0-)

      I take issue with the idea that the unconstitutional appointment of an individual to high office doesn't cause an "injury in fact." The right to a constitutional government doesn't seem like something that is "conjectural or hypothetical."

      I understand why courts don't agree with me but I still find it rather sad and pathetic.

      •  the question is ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... how are you injured by an unconstitutional appointment?  

        •  I'm a citizen (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          renzo capetti

          As a citizen, I am materially invested in the proper and lawful functioning of government.

          Again, I understand why the courts don't buy this argument, but it presupposes a rather narrow idea of what constitutes a real 'injury.' I think that all citizens are injured when the government undermines its credibility by conducting flagrantly unconstitutional acts.

        •  If it brole the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

          then it affects me.  Bush may not have warrantlessly wiretapped my phoneline, but the degredation of my rights occured just the same, since by allowing such behavior to go unpunished, the government is implicitly saying they can do it to me in the future.  Disregarding source, I still think "As you have done to the least of these, so you have done to me" is pretty much the only sane view of government violation of rights; after all it is "We the people", not "Each completely atomotized citizens only representing his- or herself".  We hang together, not seperately.

          I have no problem with some sort of fix to meet the Constituional requirement, as this is obviously not the abuse the clause was meant to stop.  But making it so that no one can challenge the appointment unless Clinton basically breaks into their house and personally beats them silly reeks of governmental high-handedness.

          Also, I'd argue that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" would imply she ultimately sits at my pleasure, so that I have every right to question the appoiontment, since my taxes are, in part, going to fund her position - I am monetarily disadvantaged if her appointment is unconstituional (the monies bein paid to her basically being stolen from the citizenry), so I should be allowed to bring the question to a court for a ruling, even if Clinton did not personally invalidate my passport.

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      Otherwise, the courts would be flooded with bullshit.

      They aren't now?

      People sit where there are places to sit. -William H. Whyte

      by Luthe on Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site