3 ms·
Federal judiciary can be maddening unwilling to hold executive security apparatus to account. I'm reminded of the NSA surveillance lawsuit, that was shrugged aw
by wool_gather 6y ago
Federal judiciary can be maddening unwilling to hold executive security apparatus to account. I'm reminded of the NSA surveillance lawsuit, that was shrugged away with the same "lack of standing". And the same question lingering -- then, your honor, who exactly _does_ have standing?
- aspenmayer 6y agoIt creates a catch-22-enhanced version of Who’s On First[1][2], except it’s Who Has Legal Standing? It results in judges being hesitant to rule as they ought due to intentional muddying of the jurisdictional hierarchy of bureaucracy and who is able to claim standing and harm. It’s a shell game designed to disempower everyone in the courtroom to the boon of those who can never or will never be brought inside one. What if change through the courts is impossible because it would take longer than any one person’s life to acquire standing to sue, and have the case heard? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg