Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

The Velveteen Ocelot

(129,859 posts)

4. Well, the federal judge seems to have bought it.

Reply to Xipe Totec (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 11:08 PM

Feb 2017

But the state attorneys general represent states, not individuals, so they have to establish that their clients, the states, have standing. It's not a matter of ignoring individuals who have been harmed, it's that the AGs have to show evidence of legal standing.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The big hole in the Trump administration's argument about standing [View all] Xipe Totec Feb 2017 OP

listen to the talking heads unblock Feb 2017 #1

The AGs have established standing by alleging injury to their states. The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #2

That has been used before and declared nebulous and hard to quantify Xipe Totec Feb 2017 #3

Well, the federal judge seems to have bought it. The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #4

The federal judge bought it sufficiently to maintain the status quo Ms. Toad Feb 2017 #7

The established enough of an argument to obtain a TRO. Ms. Toad Feb 2017 #5

Understood. Agree. However, the pushback from the Feds is that there is no standing Xipe Totec Feb 2017 #6

The economic impact to the states, at least to Washington, is not speculative. Ms. Toad Feb 2017 #9

This is their argument: The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2017 #8