So gay!!!

[G-O-A-T]

Again, the article explicitly says; "In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:" but "standing" is not mentioned as one of those "conditions," at least not is so many words (or word),

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]

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.

I agree, just tellin what the bottom-feeder who wrote the wiki article says, that's all.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Chem, Kicky unashamedly admits to bein a damn bottom-feeder. Goat aint fessed up to it, but, yeah, he's one too, aint no question.

Me, I aint no bottom-feeder.

I have spent more time in prison law libraries than you have breathing. I would also bet that, in my career, I have made more as a "legal expert," with payments being made in the form of a couple of cartons of Camel cigarettes for an entire appeal, than you have in your brief legal career, eh, Kicky?

Come on now... this is better payment than I ever got for my legal advice...

 

[Hopper]

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.

 

[sirkickyass]

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.

 

[Hopper]

Come on now... this is better payment than I ever got for my legal advice...

Where ya do your time, Goat?

 

[sirkickyass]

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.

 

[Hopper]

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?

 

[Hopper]

By the way, Kicky, issues of "justiciability" are non-waivable, eh?

Even if you were correct, the defendants in this action didn't litigate standing at the trial level so they have waived it as a defense for appellate purposes.

 

[G-O-A-T]

Where ya do your time, Goat?

I haven't done any time... but I'm no lawyer... at least not officially for 7 or 8 more weeks (crosses fingers)

 

[Hopper]

I haven't done any time... but I'm no lawyer... at least not officially for 7 or 8 more weeks (crosses fingers)

I git it, eh, Goat? That's when your suspension by the bar is up, if they don't catch yo *** again first, eh?

 

[G-O-A-T]

Termination of suspension would be definite... that would be good.

Passing bar exam is iffy... that would be reality.