Standing, why do we love you so?

[Bob Sheridan]

People (or parties) have standing (or don't), while issues are 
justiciable for one reason or another, or not.

rs
sfls



Howard Schweber wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20061002/917396a2/bobsheridan.vcf