5 ms·
Seems it was more a case of the plaintiff not having standing.
by lclarkmichalek 9y ago
Seems it was more a case of the plaintiff not having standing.
- hluska 9y agoI think the op's point was that plaintiffs with standing can't afford to seek a legal remedy.
- sitkack 9y ago"plaintiff not having standing" is one of the biggest bullshit aspects of American law. Unjust laws sit on the books being used to threaten and intimidate people, and only until some with the money, gall and the lack of anything to lose does a law get challenged. This person also needs to get charged under this law, which often not the case. The Justice System, knowing the rules, tries to never expose itself to a potential challenger. 1) Laws should pass a constitutional court before being put into place. 2) Anyone should be able to challenge a law. Period. Of course, those "with standing" should have more weight. But many clearly unconstitutional laws stand simply because of a lack of standing.
- rebuilder 9y agoSo is this being treated as a civil matter? To me this seems more like the kind of thing the prosecutor's office should pursue.