Posted on February 13, 2017



Liberal Under-Standing

Left needs no relevance in court


Daniel Clark



In order to have standing to bring a lawsuit, a petitioner is supposed to be able to demonstrate that he or she is an injured party.  One cannot bring a suit just because one dislikes or disagrees with a particular government action.  That is, unless one happens to be a liberal.

When Seattle district judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against President Trump’s executive “travel ban,” he declared that the states of Washington and Minnesota had legal standing to challenge the policy, because they had “established a likelihood of irreparable injury” if the order were not granted.  How can that be?

“The Executive Order adversely affects the States’ residents in the areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel,” Robart explained.  “In addition, the States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the Executive Order has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as to the States’ operations, tax bases and public funds.”

Just try to take any one among this litany of assertions seriously.  How does a 90-day restriction in migration from certain countries in order to reassess vetting processes irreparably harm Minnesota businesses?  Judge Robart isn’t interpreting the law here.  He’s only using these states’ frivolous action as a pretext to implement his own policy in place of the president’s.  The only law to which he remains true is the one that says to never, ever trust a man who voluntarily wears a bow tie.

Last June, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that imposed health and safety regulations on abortion clinics, on the basis that these requirements placed an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.  But wait a minute, when the Court fabricated a “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion, it was women who supposedly had that right, not the abortionists.  Yet the plaintiff in this case was not a woman arguing that her rights were being violated; it was a chain of abortion clinics, demanding to be allowed to operate in squalid, third-world conditions.

Whole Woman’s Health had no rights, real or judicially concocted, that were imperiled by the Texas law.  Nevertheless, the majority on the Court granted the clinics third-party standing to sue on behalf of the women they serve, even though those women’s interests did not necessarily coincide with their own.  In fact, the purpose of the law in question was to protect the women from the clinics, which had been cited in the past for such violations as using unsterile and rusty equipment, failing to have qualified nursing staff on site, and illegal dumping of fetal remains.  Whole Women’s Health had no standing, and was only treated as if it had so that activist, pro-abortion justices could have yet another opportunity to fight on behalf of their favorite cause.

Although we have laws against cruelty to animals, there are no such things as “animal rights,” nor could animals assert any, even if they had the wherewithal to try.  Yet in the 1998 Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Glickman case, the District of Columbia circuit court found that activist Marc Jurnove had legal standing, on the basis that he had suffered “aesthetic injury” from the sight of caged animals.

In 2011, a provincial court in Ecuador allowed liberal activists to sue on behalf of “nature.”  What’s that got to do with us?  Presumably nothing, until you realize that Stephen Breyer and the other liberals on our Supreme Court think it appropriate to apply foreign precedent to American law.  If “aesthetic injury” is all it takes, then every liberal activist from Portland to Poughkeepsie will be seeking to fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming The Lorax.

Don’t waste your time looking for cases in which legal standing was so generously granted to conservatives, or those whose motives appear to be apolitical, because standing is yet another mechanism for enforcing the political double-standard within our judiciary.  In their efforts to impose their vision of society on the nation, liberal judges have eschewed the entire Constitution at this point.  They’re not about to be stopped by a comparatively minor obstacle like insufficient standing.

Liberal judges see liberal plaintiffs as the Robin to their Batman, in their ongoing crusade for “social justice.”  To them, the most unjust thing in the world would be for their kind to be held to the same standards as mere citizens like you and me.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar