top of page

Legal Standing

Liberal? Wondering why your fever dreams of impeachment and recovery against the President for violation of the emoluments clause are unrealized despite all media cartel created expectations to the contrary? You're being lied to. Here is a court decision where the President secured dismissal of the suit concerning his alleged violations of the emoluments clause. The suit was dismissed for lack of standing. The article dismissively states that "standing" is a "technicality". Hardly.

The "standing to sue" doctrine is a threshold determination in the court that requires that the party has sufficient stake in a case or controversy to obtain judicial resolution. Sierra Club v. Morton, 406 US 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed 2d 636. It is the legal concept that is used to determine whether the plaintiff has a legally cognizable, protectably tangible interest in the case. Guidry v. Roberts, La.App. 331 So. 2d 44, 50. It is jurisdictionally determinative as to whether the federal court may hear the case. Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, D.C.Pa. 358 F. Supp. 684, 695. It is hardly a "technicality."

I know. It's hard to know who to believe. Someone you actually know who has practiced law for thirty (30) years using Supreme Court citations ... or some anonymous NBC smartest boy in the class paritsan 'politics reporter' without a law degree who is feeding your contempt for the President and undermining the reputational efficacy of the federal court system for clicks and political purposes … and his own shits and giggles.

Hmmmm ...

bottom of page