You lawyer types

[85Sooner]

What does this mean. need sone interpretation hep here.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."


Lacked Standing, What standing does he need?

Harm for not following the constitution is to vague?

I didn't figure this case would hold water but the decision seems to say that :
if we allow a candidate who is not eligible to go ahead and run since he has gotten this far, he is not willing to allow the suit because the effect on allowing the candidate to win and how much harm could be done are not predictible thus lets not bother the voters with this.

[Vaevictis]

If you read the case, the judge makes it quite clear.

There are multiple precedents the judge cites which state that the plaintiff has insufficient standing because the injury he alleges has been done to him is too vague or generalized to grant him standing to bring the case.

[Jerk]

I didn't think much of this, either, until the Obama side refused to answer the plaintiff's charge.

The judge pretty much said, "Hey, if he's not a natural born citizen, it's really no big deal anyway." He just did it in purtier words.

[Vaevictis]

No, the judge said, "Your allegations don't show that you've suffered or are going to suffer an injury. You have no standing. GTFO."

[Vaevictis]

I think to shed some light on this, put yourself in Berg's shoes.

Ask yourself, "What injury can I show that would permit me to bring suit?"

Have you suffered physical harm from Obama's candidacy?
Have you suffered financial harm from Obama's candidacy?
Are your civil rights being violated by Obama's candidacy?

etc, etc.

That's the key here. To bring suit, you actually have to show that Obama's candidacy has caused you some kind of actionable injury. Berg failed to do so.

(This being, of course, my non-lawyerly interpretation of the ruling -- but I think it's a pretty clear and simple one, really.)

[Frozen Sooner]

What does this mean. need sone interpretation hep here.

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."


Lacked Standing, What standing does he need?

Harm for not following the constitution is to vague?

I didn't figure this case would hold water but the decision seems to say that :
if we allow a candidate who is not eligible to go ahead and run since he has gotten this far, he is not willing to allow the suit because the effect on allowing the candidate to win and how much harm could be done are not predictible thus lets not bother the voters with this.

I ain't a lawyer, but here's how I understand it:

Lack of standing means that you are not the person who can bring suit. In order to bring suit, you must be materially injured. In other words, in this case, a private citizen is not injured in any material fashion by any particular candidate being on the ballot-the private citizen has a non-judicial remedy: to wit, he can vote for a different candidate.

If Barack Obama should win the presidency, I believe either John McCain or the United States Congress would both have standing to file such a suit, but I could be wrong.

[Okla-homey]

Let me explain it like this. The big honkin case in modern SCOTUS jurisprudence on this "standing" dealio was brought by some lady who was seeking to shut down some alleged American-owned industrial polluter because its effects were somehow causing a problem on the African savannah where the cheetahs and wildebeests live.

The court said GTFO of here because 1) she had no plans to visit said African savannah to observe said cheetahs and wildebeests and 2) because she had no such plans, she didn't have standing to bring a case to shut the plant down because even if it did in fact kill all the cheetahs and wildebeests, she would'nt know the flippin' difference living in the US.

Does that help? See, you can't just put the finger on someone, you have to make a showing that you are personally harmed, or such harm is imminent, by their mis/non/malfeasance to get into and remain in federal court. That's "standing" in a nutshell.

[soonerinabilene]

That's the key here. To bring suit, you actually have to show that Obama's candidacy has caused you some kind of actionable injury. Berg failed to do so.



Obviously, Berg is not a poster on the S.O, otherwise he could have brought up his constant headaches from banging his head on his keyboard after reading some peoples posts.