[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The concept of "standing" is one of the most fundamental principles of the U.S. justice system. Basically, courts will dismiss a claim unless there is a real dispute between aggrieved parties. Courts do not allow bystanders to waste the court's time or the taxpayers' dollars to resolve a dispute that is so insignificant that the injured party hasn't bothered to file a complaint.

For example, suppose you borrow your brother's car. You drive the car to run errands, but forget to lock the doors. The car gets stolen and is never returned, your brother gets pissed, and ends up paying a $500 insurance deductible, but that's about it. Your brother doesn't sue you for negligence in small claims court. Your brother's friend hears about the episode and gets pissed that you didn't pay the deductible. Should your brother's friend be allowed to sue you to recover the $500 deductible? Obviously not. If your brother isn't bothered enough to file suit, your brother's friend should get to use the court system to stick his nose into someone else's business.

The reason why your status as a taxpayer, voter, etc. does not afford you the right to bring suit against the FEC, the DoD, the President, etc. for anything political, is because the link between your obligation to pay taxes and, say, Obama's right to run for President is far too weak. The Federal Elections Commission, McCain, and others can chime in if there is a serious issue. Similarly, no court is going to take you seriously if you seek an injunction to stop the war in Iraq on the theory that it is being illegally prosecuted and you have standing because your tax dollars are, at least according to the anti-war crowd, being wasted.

In addition to keeping the court system from unnecessarily wasting tax dollars, the standing doctrine (as well as other related doctrines) prevents the courts from being hijacked by nuts who look to the courts to express their political views because they don't think they will like how the conventional political process (e.g., elections) will work itself out. Without the standing doctrine (and other related doctrines), the courts would likely be flooded with BS litigation designed to make an end-run around the conventional political system.

Excellent! Exactly the kind of response I was seeking.

I guess this would explain why in 2000 the lawsuit with respect to alleged voting fraud was a "Bush v. Gore" issue? Some regular citizen couldn't have filed suit against Bush because there was essentially no harm to the individual voter?

I'm guessing there must not be a whole lot to either of these allegations (for McCain or Obama). If there were I would assume the other side would have been all over that from the beginning.