It has long been my thought that those who do not vote at all have little reason to then complain when the person who is elected does things he or she does not like. However, I cannot fault those who voted for the candidate they truly thought was best, even if that candidate had little chance to actually win. If a voter liked the Green Party or Libertarian candidate and cast their vote for their favored candidate then I certainly won’t fault them for doing that. . The only way we will be able to break free from what have become two bad parties is if people have the will to start considering other parties or even be willing to start a new one that better reflects what they really want. I could hope that the Republican and Democratic parties will reform themselves in a way that truly represents most Americans, but so far the evidence suggests neither party has learned anything from this last election cycle. Both continue to play the same politics as usual. They can’t seem to help themselves.
Yeah, the Repub establishment was NOT behind Trump. They accept him now because they kinda have to - their base got pissed off at the status quo. Bernie was evidence of the dissatisfaction on the other side of the coin.
Only time will tell.
Neither party has yet taken any substantial steps towards any meaningful reform. As they are right now, they will keep nominating the same kind of candidates they always have because their processes are substantially the same they’ve been for decades. Every time a party loses a presidential election there is the gnashing of teeth and the supposed “soul searching” as to why the party lost. But what ever becomes of that soul searching? Ultimately, very little actually every changes. This is not surprising. Large organizations tend to be resistant to change even when they see the need for change around them. Their inertia keeps them going much the same way that they always have. Congress is perhaps the best example of this. Members of Congress know that the public holds them in extremely low esteem and that the public is fed up with the constant political games they play to try to one up each other instead of actually doing the hard work of crafting important legislation that might make things better for the country. Members of Congress say they hate it. They say they hate the bickering. They say they hate the huge amount of time they have to spend raising money. They say that they would rather be able to spend their time doing that legislative work. And yet neither party has made any real effort towards fixing the problems with that institution. And why should they? They keep getting reelected under the current system. Maybe you buy the facade they’ve erected claiming they’ve changed; that they’ve repaired their house. I don’t because behind that facade the same crumbling house remains.
Ok, no specific injury=no standing
yet in the case at hand, the only injury claimed is by crews own doing. Basically: we are spending time and money by our own choice to deal with this current issue so CREW has been injured.
so, to prevent injury they simply do not devote time to the activity.
Thats like running your car into another car and claiming it's their fault because their car was where I could run into it, even though it was my choice to run into
it.
What the heck am I missing there?
Yes, but if you read through the Ragin decision previously described, you can see such an argument, if backed up with substantiation can indeed be used to show standing.
I see even less of a basis to grant standing due to willingly acting to perform their chosen work when I read this;
forced? All expenditures were chosen, not forced. Ohc may have felt compelled based on their corporate goal but they were surely not forced.Spiro's testimony demonstrated that the OHC was forced to "devote significant resources to identify and counteract" the defendants' advertising practices and did so to the detriment of their "efforts to [obtain] equal access to housing through counseling and other referral services."
Dang, using that argument any hired attorney could argue standing to sue every opposing party along with their client since they expend time and effort to address the wrongs committed by the opposing party that they could have spent counseling other clients.
Of all things that don't make sense to me, this one makes the least sense.
The elements to standing are:
Injury: Plaintiff has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury that is concrete and palpable. (palpable = tangible, concrete, we can see it, not just being offended or mad at the government).
Causation: Injury is fairly traceable to the defendant
Redressability: A favorable court decision is likely to redress the injury.