3 ms·

I truly don't understand why you think in the example you give why a company would have standing to sue. I don't think any further conversation will be producti

I truly don't understand why you think in the example you give why a company would have standing to sue. I don't think any further conversation will be productive. From my point of view, you're using motivated reasoning to do your best to defend an obviously indefensible view.

yanderekko 4y ago
And what's my alleged motivation? A love for oil companies? Hah. Accusations of motivated reasoning can be easily lobbed back, and I suspect that all my critics in this thread have similar ideological motivations, hence explaining the correlated errors. Standing requires injury, causation, and redressability. Which do you dispute the existence of in these scenarios? Again, I'm not saying that oil companies should actually be able to stop mass transportation policies. But to claim that a mass transportation policy cannot causally injure an oil company? Wild. Why are people using this as an example if they can't imagine how an oil company might take some sort of interest in stopping a mass transportation policy?