3 ms·
The idea of "standing" seems horrible to me, "me" being firmly not-a-lawyer. It means it's difficult for me to contest something on merit in a court system if I
by themartorana 12y ago
The idea of "standing" seems horrible to me, "me" being firmly not-a-lawyer. It means it's difficult for me to contest something on merit in a court system if I can't prove it wrongs me directly. But judicial review doesn't happen without an actor - someone to raise the flag that something needs reviewing.
Is there a good argument for having to prove standing before being able to challenge an affront to human rights or the Constitution, or anything else I can plainly see is wrong but may not directly affect me?
- spacemanmatt 12y agoShort version: It's better to require plaintiffs have standing (actual controversy) than to allow them to bring hypothetical controversies to the courts.