Standing, why do we love you so?

[Howard Schweber]

At one time there was some difference in the way the Court treated 
different justiciability requirements in that some were conceded to be 
merely prudential while others were asserted to be constitutionally 
required.  In recent years, there has been a shift to insisting that even 
requirements that were originally described as prudential are now 
constitutionally required.

Standing is one of the requirements that, as far as I know, always had 
constitutional status.

Howard Schweber
UW-Madison
Dept. of Poli. Sci.




At 05:23 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, Earl Maltz wrote:
>For what its worth, I never say that in my class.  Instead, I tell my 
>class that we are using the evolution of the law of standing as an example 
>of the "who" of constitutional adjudication.
>
>At 04:45 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, Tish Gotell Faulks wrote:
>>By way of background, I am a new professor teaching Intro to Con LAw to 
>>evening students for the second time.  On of my students, a forensic 
>>specialist by day, law student by night, asked the follwoing 
>>question.  From the litigator perspective, I agree with him, but wanted 
>>to open this one up to colleague discussion.  He writes:
>>
>>I keep hearing that 'standing' is the most important of the 
>>justiciability requirements. This doesn't  seem to make any sense. If 
>>violating ANY of the justiciability requirements occurs, then the case 
>>can't be heard.  That's like saying that death by cyanide is 'more 
>>lethal' than death by curare. You're dead either way.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.