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 .
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.
Wrong, yet again, as you have consistently been in this thread.
You said, and are still trying to suggest, that article 3 standing issues can be waived. Wrong
You said the Oryszak case we just discussed was about a "political issue." Wrong it aint.
You said that the "sub-components" of standing (as just presented here, and have been by Goat and Wiki in this thread) were sub-components of "actual controversy" requirements. They aint.
Now you try to suggest that I am "selectively" quoting and thereby distorting the facts. Wrong, I aint (either distorting, or trying to distort). I did not bother to quote irrelevant parts of this opinion precisely because they are irrelevant, they have NOTHING to do with the constutional standing requirement imposed by article 3 which are the ONLY types of standing requirements we have been discussing in this thread and which are the type which you (erroneously) said can are waived if not raised at trial. The relevant portion of this case which I have already quoted makes this quite clear (for anyone but you, mebbe).
This case points out that there are two different levels of "standing" requirements. I have already quoted the portion pertaining to Article 3 requirements and the NON-WAIVABILITY of those of the standing elements at that (constitutional) level of standing analysis which this court declared.
The court then continues with a separate issue and goes on to note:
"However, federal courts also impose judicially created "prudential" standing requirements that further limit their jurisdiction. Id. Prudential elements of standing, unlike the constitutional requirements, can be waived." Judically-imposed, "prudential" standing requirement (which we have NOT been talking about) can be waived UNLIKE the constitutional requirement (specified in my last post). The Brown Group (Supreme Court) case clearly states what the issue is in this respect: "The question here is whether a bar to the union's suit found in this third prong of the test is constitutional and absolute, or prudential and malleable by Congress."
So the Supreme Courty case cited certainly DOES address this important distinction, notwithstanding your misleading and erroneous claim that: " here's your link to the Supreme Court case. It doesn't discuss waiver at all."
Contrary to your reckless assertion, that case clearly says that congress has the power to relax ONLY the court-imposed standing requirements. That would follow, because they are not requirements which arise under the constitution itself--they are merely self-imposed. Under separation of powers doctrine, congress could "waive" self-imposed limitations, BUT NOT constitutional limitations, on justiciability.
Nice try, Kicky.
Given your megalomania and your fragile psychological state in general, Kicky, yes, it's probably best you ignore me for the sake of your own sanity. Your M.O. is unvarying. You can't stand to be wrong, and always try to give the appearance that you are right even when you're not and have every reason to know you're not. In your haste to be condescendingly instructive, to brag about your supposedly infallible expertise, and to try to "impress" the board by purportedly "crushing" your opponents, you inevitably say way too much, with way too little aforethought, insight, and actual knowledge. You say reckless things, and then feel compelled to defend them to the death, even though they are utterly indefensible. It would drive anyone plumb nuts, I tellya!
“There are few people who are more often in the wrong than those who cannot bear to be so.” (La Rochefoucauld)
