So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
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.
Hopper
Banned
1. You're the one who wants to first put something in a "category," then let the category answer the question. The statement made pertains to "nonjusticiability" IN GENERAL, not to nonjusticiable POLITICAL QUESTIONS
2. The Federal district court said there was a lack of "subject matter jurisdiction," proving that, even amongst duly appointed judges these distinctions aren't always clear (they would only always be clear to you, a wet-behind-the-ears bottom-feeder with about 3 months experience, I spoze)
3. Even the appellate courts can't keep it straight, callin a "political question" limitation "jurisdictional: "We have not always been consistent in maintaining these distinctions. See, e.g., Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427, 432 (D.C.Cir.2006) (treating the political question doctrine as jurisdictional)."
But you just keep actin like it all very simple, but only to you, not no federal judges, not no Supreme Court Justices, and not NOBUDDY except for your brilliant self, eh, Kicky?
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
"Generally, standing cannot be waived if based on constitutional requirements imposed by Article III. See United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551 (1996). Constitutional standing requires at a minimum: "(1) an injury in fact[;] (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct[;] and 3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf
Another ignorant federal judge citin yet another ignorant Supreme Court decision, right there, eh, Kicky?
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ruling0808.pdf
Another ignorant federal judge citin yet another ignorant Supreme Court decision, right there, eh, Kicky?
Last edited:
Of course all the subsequent paragraphs are about why standing could be waived in that instance. Once again, selectively quoting. And once again citing something in an entirely different context (in this instance, associational standing).
And here's your link to the Supreme Court case. It doesn't discuss waiver at all: https://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/517/517.US.544.95-340.html .
It's at this point that I'm remembering why I had aint on ignore in the first place: no one wants to read this crap. Together we create board pollution.
I had to take him off when he was engaged in his two-week long whine about why things were so unfair for him, but now that appears to have ceased. He's going back on, for the good of the board and my sanity.
And here's your link to the Supreme Court case. It doesn't discuss waiver at all: https://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/517/517.US.544.95-340.html .
It's at this point that I'm remembering why I had aint on ignore in the first place: no one wants to read this crap. Together we create board pollution.
I had to take him off when he was engaged in his two-week long whine about why things were so unfair for him, but now that appears to have ceased. He's going back on, for the good of the board and my sanity.
I'm not familiar with this Latin phrase. In looking up more popular Latin phrases it is the only one that starts with the letter W...
I did find this one under V that I suspect you've heard quite often, probably starting at a young age and heard from your parents, "vade retro Satana".
