3 ms·
> Clapper was a very sensible decision. The plaintiffs in the case couldn't even prove that they had been harmed! Seems very sensible, compared to how difficul
by strlen 14y ago
> Clapper was a very sensible decision. The plaintiffs in the case couldn't even prove that they had been harmed!
Seems very sensible, compared to how difficult the search for a plaintiff with standing had been for the case that became Heller. If a civil rights activist (Parker) that received death threats had no standing to challenge DC's handgun ban, as he never tried to register a handgun (unlike Heller, who was arguably a less sympathetic defendant -- an anti-government "gun-nut", etc...), I don't see how Amnesty had standing in this case.
Second amendment is actually a great example of how poor plaintiff choice often hurts civil rights causes. See Miller vs. US -- a felony charge of transporting a sawed shotgun with defendant himself being killed before decision was rendered; the outcome resulted in 70 year reign of "collective rights" interpretation of second amendment.
- Evbn 14y ago"Standing" is horribly abused. It is used to reject plaintiffs challenging government secrecy, because they can't prove they have standing unless they win the case -- a Catch-22. Similarly, if you are banned from doing something, you don't get standing unless you do it anyway, at great personal risk. Wanting to do it is not granted standing (though it should) Standing is the legal equivalent of launching the Challenger with known frozen o-rings just because it hadn't crashed yet