Unconvinient truth about convenience or unconvenience of the standing argument
Posted on | July 30, 2010 | 10 Comments
| Jim |
Submitted on 2010/07/30 at 7:46pm
Bruce, The “myth of standing” that these courts are using to avoid hearing a case was recently shown to be what it is – a myth.The courts use it selectively when they don’t want to hear a case.What they are saying here is because hundreds of millions of other citizen’s are being injured, the plaintiff does not have a ‘unique’ injury and therefore has “no standing” Really. Then, your “esteemed honors”, explain this. The Supreme Court just ruled on the case McDonald v. Chicago in which the gun ban imposed by Chicago was overturned as unconstitutional. Now, didn’t all Chicago residents suffer the same injury when they banned guns there? If so, why was McDonald allowed to sue and his case was heard by the courts ? If the courts applied this “mythical standing” equally, then the ruling in the first case would have been “dismissed for lack of standing ” After all, according to these “esteemed” judges arguments on standing, wouldn’t the injury that McDonald suffered be shared equally with all the residents of Chicago and therefore not be unique ? If so, then everyone was affected the same, so he should have “no standing” to sue, but he was granted “standing” to sue. It just goes to show the hypocrisy of these judges. They use the concept of standing when it suits them to cower under their robes from a case. |
Comments
10 Responses to “Unconvinient truth about convenience or unconvenience of the standing argument”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
July 31st, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Standing has no standing.
July 31st, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Current “standing” jurisprudence was created by conservative supreme court justices trying to limit citizens’ access to the courts. So, the last justices you should be appealing to are Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alioto. I would appeal to Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer, who want to expand standing.
Can you write your papers to appeal to them? And suggest that it is only a matter of fundamental fairness that eligibility should be deteremined, since it never has been decided and Wong Kim Ark is not really on point?
If you can get 4 votes for certaki you can then try to convince Alioto and Thomas.
Of course, that presupposes you’ll get your papers by the clerks.
July 31st, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
The hypocracy of the USA judicial personel from local to supreme has been brought into the open in Obama’s time. Whether by being more political and self serving than by honest ,dedicated law and constitutionalists, these judges have have put our great Nation’s Founders in a pile of nonimportance. I always cringe when recalling that photo-op of Obama partying in chambers with Roberts apparently enjoying the shafting. And come to think of it can anyone know oe tell exactly what was said at the closed door substitute swearing in??
August 1st, 2010 @ 6:52 am
Nope – not the facts at all.
Several plaintiffs in McDonald were denied handgun permits (particularized injury). McDonald and another plaintiff had permits for long rifles, but the permits lapsed, and the new law made their guns unregisterable – they were therefore required to rid themselves of the rifles (particularized injury).
The so-called injury to every one equally was speculative and anticipatory. For the plaintiffs in McDonald – they all suffered concrete injury (denial of a permit and/or loss of property).
August 1st, 2010 @ 11:21 am
you’ve written before and I answered before. I remember it distinctly, as I responded that “certaki” is a Greek dance. “certiorari” is a writ, which goes to the whole court.
I am submitting an application for stay now, which goes to one Justice. I resubmitted 10 copies to Alito and need to hear a response from him first. Also, I demanded resubmitting to Thomas, as there is no signature from him. I have to wait
August 1st, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
Chum,
Precisely why the plaintiffs in the Chrysler dealearship case should have standing to sue under Quo Warranto. They have suffered particularized injury as a result of The One being in office. Let’s see if the courts grant standing in that case.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 5:57 am
Yes, I agree, that newbie Sotomayer should get her word in rite quick now and speak for We The people, show that she does not just stand for Hispanics !
Way to go before that liberal Elena Kegan gets her position.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 8:14 am
Very clever! I hadn’t thought of that!
They heard McDonald v. Chicago because it is a trick. Look at the unlikely plaintiff (as he has been referred to in many publications) and look where the case originated (Obama’s stomping grounds). Obama is right now stacking the odds in his favor with SCOTUS justices who do not believe in our unalienable rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and this McDonald v. Chicago has now opened the door for SCOTUS to change their ruling in the future.
August 2nd, 2010 @ 8:57 am
Jim:
Quo warranto can only by filed by an individual who should have that position (in this case the presidency) if not for the current position-holders illegitimacy. I am not sure that any of the Chrysler dealers were running for president.
They have suffered injury perhaps, but filing a motion for reconsideration many months after the bankruptcy court concluded everything (when they chose not to object) is a bit late. That being said, they would need to file in DC, and from what I recall – they filed in New York (if I recall correctly). They also filed against Chrysler, not Obama.
From a review of the use of quo warranto (assuming it can even be used against the president), I believe that only McCain would have standing.
Of course I will concede, if anyone shows me some cases and statutes holding otherwise without merely insisting the judges are to blame (I have no patience from blaming the judge arguments from the right or left).
August 2nd, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
I once wrote a blog on “The Standing Doctrine”, and I talked with many people, mostly legitimate and honest judges. My point was easily taken. George Soros, if he decided to take Obama’s place in 2012, with his endless record of violations against United States Constitution, such as aiding and abetting a non American to become a nominee for the dems. In addition, Soros’ statutory law violations are very well known now. Yet he could hide behind standing until the cows come home.
All any criminal has to do to become president, is to have a gift of gab; or, in other words, learn how to put BS to music.
I believe this is why so many would like to toss the Standing Doctrine back to the barn yard from whence it came. It is needed by only thugs and hooligans.