G-O-A-T
Member
Sorry Hopper. Standing is a requirement for justiciability. The wiki article says so... and even if it didn't, standing is still a requirement... in fact its probably the most important requirement.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Sorry Hopper. Standing is a requirement for justiciability. The wiki article says so... and even if it didn't, standing is still a requirement... in fact its probably the most important requirement.
Hopper
Banned
I agree, just tellin what the bottom-feeder who wrote the wiki article says, that's all.
G-O-A-T
Member
Hopper
Banned
To answer my own question (since it seems nobuddy else is gunna) I would say that one way to look at it is like this:
There are 4 basic "limitations" on (federal) legal juridiction, to wit:
1. Subject matter limitations
2. Limitations pertaining to particular persons
3. Territorial limitations, and
4. Justicability limitations
That would not be "technically" correct, but it might be a convenient way to look at it, ya know?
Article 3 basically spells out all the "subject matter" limitiations. To the extent that the very words "cases and controversies" have been interpreted to limit that subject matter jurisdiction, I would really be more inclined to just call them "limits on subject matter jurisdiction," though.
There are 4 basic "limitations" on (federal) legal juridiction, to wit:
1. Subject matter limitations
2. Limitations pertaining to particular persons
3. Territorial limitations, and
4. Justicability limitations
That would not be "technically" correct, but it might be a convenient way to look at it, ya know?
Article 3 basically spells out all the "subject matter" limitiations. To the extent that the very words "cases and controversies" have been interpreted to limit that subject matter jurisdiction, I would really be more inclined to just call them "limits on subject matter jurisdiction," though.
Chem: Aint has stated that he is what we refer to as a "jailhouse lawyer."
The quality of their work-product is generally viewed as, ummm, questionable. That's part of what you're seeing here.
I'm a lawyer, licensed in California and Arizona.
I don't know about GOAT, but he's clearly had some form of legal education.
The quality of their work-product is generally viewed as, ummm, questionable. That's part of what you're seeing here.
I'm a lawyer, licensed in California and Arizona.
I don't know about GOAT, but he's clearly had some form of legal education.
Hopper
Banned
Where ya do your time, Goat?
Since aint likes wiki so much I'll direct him to the sidebar on all these pages he's citing to, which clearly distinguishes justiciability from subject matter jurisdiction and clearly groups standing under the justiciability heading.
But as with all things aint, they are citable up until he disagrees and then it's something that some "bottom feeder" (i.e. someone with more education and subject specific knowledge than him) wrote. But I mean, who would trust a lawyer about the basic concepts of civil procedure right? That guy wouldn't know anything.
What a ****ing joke.
But as with all things aint, they are citable up until he disagrees and then it's something that some "bottom feeder" (i.e. someone with more education and subject specific knowledge than him) wrote. But I mean, who would trust a lawyer about the basic concepts of civil procedure right? That guy wouldn't know anything.
What a ****ing joke.
Hopper
Banned
Tell it all to the guys at this here law school, eh, Kicky:?
I'm looking at what appears to be a university law school's dissection of "Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Power" imposed by article 3. At the top, in the "title" it clearly lists "Standing, Mootness, Ripeness, and Political Questions" as things to consider. However, if you look further, where the actual discussion occurs, "ripeness" is expanded to "RIPENESS/ADVERSENESS," suggesting that actual "adverseness" is a separate consideration. https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ontroversy.htm
Where ya say you gotcho legal schoolin again? Some candyass "law school," right?
I'm looking at what appears to be a university law school's dissection of "Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Power" imposed by article 3. At the top, in the "title" it clearly lists "Standing, Mootness, Ripeness, and Political Questions" as things to consider. However, if you look further, where the actual discussion occurs, "ripeness" is expanded to "RIPENESS/ADVERSENESS," suggesting that actual "adverseness" is a separate consideration. https://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ontroversy.htm
Where ya say you gotcho legal schoolin again? Some candyass "law school," right?
Hopper
Banned
G-O-A-T
Member
I haven't done any time... but I'm no lawyer... at least not officially for 7 or 8 more weeks (crosses fingers)
Hopper
Banned
I git it, eh, Goat? That's when your suspension by the bar is up, if they don't catch yo *** again first, eh?
Hopper
Banned
Well, ya might be a little late for the fun, eh, Goat? From what I hears-tells, they aint gunna be no mo chance for one of your clients to git gunned down by a firin squad, eh? As his bottom-feeder, I spect ya could be there, if he was, ya know?
That you would even pretend that website (which you incorrectly link to incidentally) supports your case is the height of absurdity.
The very top of the page lists standing as the first of the constitutional limitations.
The first subject discussed: standing.
The list of cases at the side group standing as the only issue under the heading of "case or controversy requirement."
The page is firmly on my side aint, not yours. Although to say you have a side is even to acknowledge there's a controversy. You're basically arguing that blue is orange.
Let's just say that your assertion that UMKC is somehow out of my league is laughable.
Issues of standing arising from the case and controversy requirement, if not raised at the trial level, are waived. It's a procedural default. In essence, by defending the case on the merits you have conceded that there is a case or controversy.
Standing issues can also be waived explicitly in a number of contexts, and Congress has explicitly done so on behalf of the government in several different instances such as environmental litigation under certain statutes.
Here's an example that's publicly available for you of a slip opinion where standing was waived through failure to bring it up at the lower level:
https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_05512.htm
That's typically how it would be handled.
Other justiciability issues are non-waivable. I gave examples in a previous post of both waivable and non-waivable issues.
But keep on trying to show I have "no basic competency."
Hopper
Banned
Why are you citin NY cases when we've been talking all along about federal courts, I wonder? Like Goat done said, eh?:
"Judge Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion...a court must decline to adjudicate a nonjusticiable claim even if the defendant does not move to dismiss it under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). . . the nonjusticiability of a claim may not be waived..."
"Judge Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion...a court must decline to adjudicate a nonjusticiable claim even if the defendant does not move to dismiss it under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). . . the nonjusticiability of a claim may not be waived..."
Last edited:
Nice selective use of elipses aint.
I picked that case because it was the first one that came up in my google search and I wanted an example you could see. I assure you that it's representative.
The case GOAT cited isn't about waiving standing. It's about waiving the political question doctrine.
Read the full thing and you'll see the court is deciding on an SMJ motion and a motion for failure to state a claim.
The reference to "justiciability" is not about standing, or even about all justiciability claims generally, but about whether or not the court has the power of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a political question doctrine issue and the case text explicitly states as much.
You can't waive a political question. Whoop-de-damn do. That wasn't in dispute.
I already explicitly acknowledged you can't waive every justiciability issue and provided mootness as an example.
You can't even waive standing in all instances, I've acknowledged there's exceptions. Neither party can waive redressability for example. But you can certainly waive that the other side isn't an "adverse party" for standing purposes when you're talking about the case and controversy requirement. And that's where your original claim lay.
Keep on trying to score points when you've conceded all the other substance.
I picked that case because it was the first one that came up in my google search and I wanted an example you could see. I assure you that it's representative.
The case GOAT cited isn't about waiving standing. It's about waiving the political question doctrine.
Read the full thing and you'll see the court is deciding on an SMJ motion and a motion for failure to state a claim.
The reference to "justiciability" is not about standing, or even about all justiciability claims generally, but about whether or not the court has the power of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, which is a political question doctrine issue and the case text explicitly states as much.
You can't waive a political question. Whoop-de-damn do. That wasn't in dispute.
I already explicitly acknowledged you can't waive every justiciability issue and provided mootness as an example.
You can't even waive standing in all instances, I've acknowledged there's exceptions. Neither party can waive redressability for example. But you can certainly waive that the other side isn't an "adverse party" for standing purposes when you're talking about the case and controversy requirement. And that's where your original claim lay.
Keep on trying to score points when you've conceded all the other substance.