With cases like the ObamaCare challenge, it’s less clear that broad constitutional standing necessarily advances “liberal” political goals, and advocates on both sides may be adjusting their positions (even) farther toward a tactical or instrumental view of standing controversies. (Ilya Somin; Somin v. Kerr on the merits); Linda Greenhouse, NYTimes “Opinionator”.
2 Comments
Yet another instance in which vigorous liberal advocacy helps to forge bullets that conservatives can pick up off the ground and load into their own weapons.
well, besides that, there is standing in the proposition 8 case in california.
i mean the governor and the AG were charged with defending the amendment, but refused to. Jerry Brown first tried to get the Cali S.C. to invalidate the amendment, and failing that when a gay couple sued in federal court, Brown said he thought it was an unconstitutional law under the federal constitution and refused to defend it.
Despite that, they nominally opposed Perry, and thus the case went forward. Now they lost, they are now saying they will not appeal and the court is saying the prop 8 proponents do not have standing. Oh, and imperial county is not allowed to intervene even though San Francisco was allowed to, on the same basis asserted by imperial county. go figure.
But maybe that is a bad example. I think it is hard to escape the conclusion that Judge Walker was blatantly biased, going as far as to misrepresent what prop 8’s counsel said. Bluntly he should have disqualified himself from sitting in the case.