Journalist Chris Hedges Sues Obama Admin over Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Approved in NDAA

[happyslug]

28. I am talking the POLITICS of the Court

The US Supreme Court is a POLITICAL entity, it will bend the issue of Standing when it wants to. That is the point I was making. This is a CONTROVERSIAL Subject, popular with Congress (given its overwhelming support from Congress). The Court has used standing to avoid AND to hear cases it wanted to in the past, ignoring precedent when needed.

As to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, that case involved environmentalists that opposed regulations issued by the Federal Government. To quote from the opinion:

Standing is particularly difficult to show here, since third parties, rather than respondents, are the object of the Government action or inaction to which respondents object. Pp. 559-562.

That is NOT the case as to this reporter, he has reported on this subject in the past and plans to do so in the Future, this he passes the test set by Lujan vs the Defenders of Wildlife and being able to state A DIRECT HARM to himself, i.e. arrest for violating the statute, that gives him standing IF THE COURT WANTS TO DECIDE THIS CASE, my rest of my thread was basically a statement of when the Court will avoid such a case if and when the Court decides it is Politically desirable to do so.

In Lujan vs Defenders of Wildlife the Court ruled that you had to have be subject to a DIRECT HARM to have standing in the Federal Court, in Lujan vs Defenders of Wildlife did the court REQUIRE you to violate a Statute before you can challenge it IF YOU CAN SHOW HARM TO YOURSELF based on HOW THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN. The direct attack was left open TO PEOPLE WHO COULD SUFFER DIRECT HARM, but third parties can NOT have standing unless they can point so some DIRECT or INDIRECT harm to themselves based on the wording of the Statute. Mere POTENTIAL harm at some future date is not enough to give someone standing, but the court has NEVER ruled one MUST first be CHARGED with a Crime to challenge the constitutionality of a Criminal Statute if it can be shown the mere existence of the Statute CAN impose unconstitutional limits to one's actions (I do NOT have to be charged with violating a law saying I can NOT walk down a street, I have Standing to Challenge that law do to the mere fact I am SUBJECT to arrest if I walked down that Street).

The same with this reporter, he has reported on this subject in the past and states he will do so in the future. Thus this law FORBIDS him to do something and that is a DIRECT HARM.

In 2004 the court ruled in ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al that the Atheist Father did NOT have standing to the Pledge of Allegiance at his child's school. The court said he had NO STANDING for he did NOT have primary physical custody of the Child. The court said the MOTHER would have had standing, for she had primary physical custody, but the father did not have standing. The concurring opinions, lead by Requenist, Thomas and O'Connor all agreed Father had Standing and concurred with the Majority for it struck down the decision of the ninth Circuit as to the Pledge of Allegiance. They dissented from the Majority on the issue of Standing saying the Father had Standing even through he did NOT have primary Physical Custody and while he had Joint legal Custody, in any dispute as to legal Custody issue, Mother decision was to control (the Majority ruled that the Custody Order gave MOTHER final control over any litigation involving the child and Mother wanted the case DISMISSED, the Father had NO Standing to file the action in the first place).

Standing requires a direct harm, the Majority in Elk Gover Unified School District vs Newton, said Father was at best a third party and as such could suffer NO direct harm and thus had no standing. That follows Lujan vs Defenders of Wildlife, but all the Justices said he would have had Standing of he had Primary Physical Custody for then he would have suffered an indirect harm via his child having to say the Pledge of Allegiance in School.

My point is Standing just requires that a person can SUFFER A HARM, not a possible harm a real harm. Restrictions as to what one can do is a DIRECT HARM and thus this reporter has Standing.

Here is the LUJAN v. NAT'L WILDLIFE FED'N, 497 U.S. 871 (1990)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=497&invol=871

This issue was ruled for a second time in 1992 involving the same parties see
LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=504&invol=555

For ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. NEWDOW et al.see:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=1