Comments on: Dr. Conspiracy Comments

By: Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:27:23 +0000

While we haven’t delved into the details of what we mean by “within reason” or “reasonable possibility”, let’s choose an example out of the air, say, Berg v. Obama, to look at. Do you think it meats the reasonable test?

By: Hitandrun

Hitandrun — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:45:09 +0000

Expelliarmus,

You say ‘potayto’, I say ‘potahto’.
Same thing.

Hitandrun

By: Hitandrun

Hitandrun — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:42:16 +0000

Doc,
Your parenthetical “(within reason)” echoes my own “reasonable possibility.” The courts already make such preliminary findings, even if unstated, before denying standing.

Hitandrun

By: Expelliarmus

Expelliarmus — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:34:20 +0000

The question is whether standing and focused discovery should be granted. Hitandrun, 'standing' is not something that courts have the option of "granting" or denying -- rather, they have no authority to act unless there is standing.

By: Expelliarmus

Expelliarmus — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:20:06 +0000

That’s true, but the main point is that under our constitution and system of laws, the jurisdiction of courts is limited. A court can’t render a decision unless the litigant can show that the court has jurisdiction over the people involved and over the subject of the litigation. This seems to be something that a lot of lay people don’t quite understand.