Thursday, July 31, 2014

Standing Around

Rather than go to law school, I spent my college and grad school years studying theatre.  (Some would say there’s not a lot of difference between the two, but that’s another story.)  So I need someone with a knowledge of the law to explain to me how the House of Representatives can sue the president for not implementing a part of a law that they have voted over fifty times to repeal.

I thought that in order to successfully sue someone, the plaintiff had to show some kind of harm, loss, or infringement and that they suffered by the defendant’s action or negligence.  It will be interesting to see how the House’s attorneys show that they have the legal standing in this case.

Lawyers, have at it.

6 barks and woofs on “Standing Around

  1. Having studied both Law and Theatre (yet another story), I’m as confused as you are. Add to that the problem of standing: Congress hasn’t be especially harmed by the law – or by any other executive action – so they may not be entitled to sue.

    Of course that doesn’t stop Teahadists from insisting that their states’ legislatures and court systems can override federal statute and SCOTUS decision, either…

  2. Harm, loss, or infringement…Obama is black and a Democrat. The presidency should, by rights, be held by a white Republican.

  3. I suppose it depends on the judge who hears the case. If it’s a Republican appointee, I’d say there’s a good chance they’ll be found to have standing. And if the case goes nowhere it will at least have helped fire up the base, i.e., the Tea Party crazies.

Comments are closed.