Tapp into the Truth
Politics • News
Legal Standing: Meaningful Legal Principle or Convenient Tool for Activist Judges
June 17, 2024
post photo preview

   Before a lawsuit is allowed to proceed in the United States, there is a question that must be answered to the satisfaction of the presiding judge. "Does the party seeking judicial relief have standing?" Okay, so what is "Legal Standing," and how is it determined? The definition is simple enough, but determining who meets that bar is often a matter of judgment of the judge or judges hearing the case. 

   Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To have Standing, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. The judge must first decide if the person or group that has filed the complaint/challenge has been "sufficiently affected," which can sometimes be a simple matter - for example, I hit you with my car while I was driving, you have been "sufficiently affected" by that action - but then on other occasions, it's not as simple - for example; You are a taxpayer living in Florida, and the U.S. Congress raises taxes to pay for a program that will only operate in the Pacific Northwest, the court is likely to find that you are not "sufficiently affected" to sue to stop Congress from raising your taxes as all taxpayers are subject to the authority of Congress as they are operating within their Constitutional responsibilities. If the court rules that you are "sufficiently affected," then you are one step closer but still do not have standing yet.  

   Next, the court must decide if it is appropriate to intervene in the matter at hand. Is there clear, Constitutional law or legal case precedent that should be upheld and would end the dispute hand? Or, is the question outside the judicial branch's or government's preview altogether? Once both of the questions of "sufficiently affected" and "can be resolved by legal action" have been answered, the case may move forward. 

   Standing is a Constitutional principle designed to prevent government overreach and protect individual rights. However, given the nature of determining the question of Standing, an effort to apply the principle in a consistent manner, requirements for Standing have been created in case law. 

 
 

   Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established three requirements for Article III standing:       

1.) Injury in fact, meaning an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.  

2.)A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, meaning that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court. 

3.) A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, meaning the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. 

 
 

Warth v. Seldin found that in deciding Standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in that person or group's declaration and other affidavits supporting that assertion of Standing. And when addressing a motion to dismiss due to lack of Standing, the court must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing. 

 
 

Over time, other cases have added more requirements via precedent, like  Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity found that when an individual seeks to avail themself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, they must show that there "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." And that this requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions." Someone seeking injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm to have standing to bring suit." via Nelsen v. King County. 

 
 

   So, as you can see, precedents have established cover for judges to use their judgment - and personal prejudices - rather than well-established law in making determinations about Legal Standing. This leads us back to the question asked in the title of this piece. Has "Legal Standing" transitioned from a Constitutional principle to limit governmental power to become a tool for activist judges who are no longer content with making rulings based on law? Two recent cases illustrate the need for the American people to ask this question. 

 
 

   On August 14th, 2023, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of sixteen young climate activists in a case dealing with the state's fossil fuel permits. Judge Seeley ruled that the state's approval process for fossil fuel permits violates Montana's state constitution because it does not consider the effects of carbon emissions. The plaintiffs, aged five to 22, sued the state, claiming Montana's fossil fuel policies contribute to climate change. Their lawsuit cited a 1972 clause in Montana's Constitution: "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is planning to appeal the decision and will most likely win that appeal due largely to the question of Standing for the young activists who brought forth this case. 

   It is clear from Judge Seeley's writing, "Montana's emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment," and "Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts." that the judge did not apply law to the ruling but rather their own pro-climate change belief. Without a personal bias on the question before the judge, how does Seeley justify allowing Standing to these young people? Even if you buy into the idea that being young somehow makes you disproportionately impacted by the harms of "climate change," there is still the question of "what is the likelihood that a favorable decision will fix the injury." How does making Montana consider climate change when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects such as power plants protect these young people when China, India, and multiple African nations continue to use fossil fuel at ever-increasing levels? Plus, what if, after considering climate change, Montana decides that the good of such a project outweighs the potential harm? Based on requirement three established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and buying into the general dogma of the Climate Change religion, Standing should not have been granted; the week-long trial should have never happened. 

    

Also on August 14th, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the Eastern District of Michigan issued an 18-page order dismissing a case challenging Joe Biden's latest version of a student debt bailout., concluding that the Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy lacked the Standing to challenge the bailout. This is after the Supreme Court smacked down the Biden administration over their earlier effort at a bailout for student debt borrowers.  

   The Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy's suit claimed that the administration violated federal law by failing to produce the forgiveness policy through the traditional rulemaking process and offering the public the opportunity to comment. (Which is accurate and, if you will recall, was the same grounds that Donald Trump's efforts to end DACA were overturned.) The groups also claimed the policy would harm their recruitment efforts, which is how the groups attempted to establish their Standing. If the filing makes it clear to the court that this policy does harm recruiting for these groups and that addressing the clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act would correct that harm, then all of the criteria for Standing have been met. So why did Judge Ludington deny Standing? Reading through his 18-page order, at the bottom of page two, Ludington simply stated that "the Plaintiffs, in this case, cannot show such concrete particularized injury and, even if they could, Plaintiffs cannot show causation." No explanation as to why he determined this to be true, just a statement that it is the case. Did the original filing fail to prove the harm to recruiting or that a favorable ruling would correct the issue? Or did Judge Ludington not want to assist conservatives in stopping Joe Biden's attempts to bribe voters going into election season? Either way, it is an awfully convenient excuse not to address the obvious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act committed by the Biden administration. (Just as an FYI, Sheng Li, an attorney at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing the conservative groups in the lawsuit, said, "We disagree with the court's conclusion regarding legal Standing and are reviewing our legal options.") 

 
 

   Given that we are now living in a time where it appears that the Department of Justice has been weaponized to attack political opposition and protect those in power, it feels vital that we restore integrity to all aspects of the judiciary system from the front line of law enforcement to each member of the highest court in the land. Officers and Agents can not behave as if they are above the law; attorneys and judges can not act as if they can re-write the law; personal politics can not be allowed to interfere with the execution of assigned duties. And most importantly, the Constitution must be recognized as the supreme law of the land, not just something to work around in order to get what you want. Otherwise, all is lost. Can we start by agreeing on defining who does and who does not have Standing? 

community logo
Join the Tapp into the Truth Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Why is There Antisemitism?

Clip from the Feb. 6th Tapp into the Truth Rumble Live Stream featuring Kenneth Abramowitz, author of The Multifront War: Defending America From Political Islam, China, Russia, Pandemics, and Racial Strife and founder of Save The West, a website dedicated to saving Western Civilization.

Watch the full video at:

00:01:00
placeholder
Deportation Is A Family Affair & Agroterrorism

Federal authorities arrested two Chinese nationals after they were accused of attempting to smuggle a potential bioweapon into the United States. Senior Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that trans-identifying prisoners should continue to get "trans-treatments" on the tax-payer dime. And more.

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/deportation-is-a-family-affair-agroterrorism--66389169

The Truly Starving Are Not in Gaza

The New York Times has just published a photo essay and article about starving Gazans. Take a look at these numbers.

https://jihadwatch.org/2025/06/the-truly-starving-are-not-in-gaza

Real Men Don’t Go Woke

You have probably seen, heard, or read Dr. Gilda since she has been everywhere, from MTV’s “Love Doc” to the “30-Second Therapist” column for the Today Show to the “Ask Dr. Gilda” column for Match.com, and she was the therapist in HBO’s, “Telling Nicholas.” Dr. Gilda Carle is a Spokesperson for the International Council of Men and Boys and the author of 19 books, including her most recent, “Real Men Don’t Go Woke.” Dr. Gilda joined me to discuss the International Council of Men and Boys and why she wrote “Real Men Don’t Go Woke.”

Due to a technical glitch, Marc Beckman couldn’t join us, but you can check out his book, “Some Future Day: How AI Is Going to Change Everything.” And we will work to reschedule him.

I discussed with Ron Edwards, host of The Ron Edwards American Experience talk show, the Supreme Court’s decision that cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke the temporary protected status for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, ...

March 18, 2025
post photo preview
Artificial Colors Banned by 2029

   Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. has issued a broad ban of “artificial colors by the end of his term in 2029 or face government intervention.”  While the new directive was focused toward the biggest companies in the food industry like PepsiCo North America, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, Tyson Foods, WK Kellogg, and JM Smucker (whom RFK, Jr. had meetings with the CEOs as well as representatives from the Consumer Brands Association), it is clear that all food manufactures and processors are expected to follow the edict.
   It is reported that RFK, Jr. told the executives that “removing artificial dyes is an urgent priority,” but he left what happens if the companies fail to comply intentionally vague. This ominous, open-ended threat was enough to make the markets react as stock for the food giants all dipped at a sharper rate than the S&P 500 in general (which was on a downward vector) pointing to investors’ concern about how the new directive will affect the bottom-line. (But to be fair, whenever the government gets involved to this extent, investors tend to get nervous, at least until they have a better idea of what the actual fallout will be.)
   How will the “removal of food dyes” policy affect the bottom line for food companies? Ultimately,, it is impossible to fully evaluate the question without knowing the ramificationsof non-compliance. After all, from a financial standpoint, it may be better to take the governmental penalty hit than a sales loss if the food is suddenly visually unappealing. People eat with their eyes, a,nd the U.S. market i,s not accustom,ed to seeing food that hasn’t been “dressed up” a bit to better meet an expected look. Add into the equation that there are surprisingly few “natural” food dyes that are as effective in coloring food items, and most are sourced in ways that are, shall we say, less than appetizing if you know the source. 
   This is a moment in time, however, where financial concerns may be overcome by both the true and the perceived health concerns that the dyes may present. The “Make America Healthy Again” movement has been picking up steam for years, well before it got its shiny new branding to fall inline with the Trump 2.0 administration. The American consumer has never been more conscious of what goes into their food and what the effects could be. This could put the food companies at more considerable risk of losses if the public believed that they were happy to risk your children’s health to pocket a little extra coin per unit sold. Especially given that companies like PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz, General Mills, WK Kellogg, and JM Smucker have different formulations, without many of the food dyes, that they have been selling in Europe for decades. 
   Further evidence of the moment we find ourselves in (regarding food colors and safety) is the fact that many states did not wait for the RFK, Jr. ultimatum to begin taking action. California has outlawed Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Green 3 in school meals. West Virginia is moving forward with bipartisan legislation that would ban a wide range of dyes and additives from all food products sold in the state. Removing harmful additives from our food supply seems to be one of the few truly bipartisan issues in our current political chaos.
  As impactful as removing food dyes from our diets will be, RFK Jr. has his sights set on a much bigger target, the GRAS system. That is the FDA’s “Generally Recognized As Safe” program that gives food manufacturers great latitude in using ingredients based on claims that an ingredient has been safe in other applications as scientific grounds to claim without the FDA officially, independently approving the ingredient for use in the manner the food company is intending. But that is a different topic for another day; just keep it on your radar.
   The question now isn’t, “does the American consumer want healthier options,” that has been made clear, and the answer is a resounding YES. The question is how those same consumers will react when they get what they are asking for. Will steak and ground beef sales hold steady when all the beef looks grey instead of red? Will they be as drawn to that banana pudding that is a natural off-white color instead of the yellow we all think of when we think banana? Well, we certainly can get used to these things if we have enough time. The US consumer, however, is notoriously impatient and very vocal during this kind of transition. So expect grumbling from the public and a bumpy ride for the food companies (in fact, some of the smaller companies may not survive to change. 
   Will MAHA succeed? It all depends on your definition of success, but time will tell.    

Read full Article
January 16, 2025
Losing At Chutes & Ladders

   I recently wrote about how Iran has effectively captured Venezuela as a proxy state in an article / op-ed that you can find at BizPac Review or here at locals. Iran has been "gifted" a large amount of land in Venezuela; It has entered into a 20-year "partnership agreement," and it has built (and is operating) a military drone factory at a Venezuelan military base, plus providing training on how to use the multiple attack UAVs that are being built there. While this is a reason to be concerned, things escalated a bit over the weekend and have been significantly downplayed by the legacy media to the point that next to no one is even talking about it.

   This past Saturday (January 11th, 2025), during Venezuela's "International Anti-Fascist Festival" in Caracas, the socialist dictator and Iranian lapdog Nicolás Maduro threatened to invade Puerto Rico, saying,  "Just as in the north they have a colonization agenda, we have a liberation agenda." and then adding, "The freedom of Puerto Rico is pending, and we will achieve it with Brazilian troops." No matter how serious you may take this threat - sabar rattling by someone looking to position himself in the eyes of the rest of South America, impress his Iranian, Russian, and Chinese "friends," just a big mouth who had a little too much to drink before taking the stage - whatever you may think, it s a clear, open threat against an American territory. (Kudos by the way to Jenniffer González-Colón, the current governor of Puerto Rico, who had the sense to skip reaching out to the (technically-still-in-charge) Biden/Haris White House and directly wrote Trump asking the in-coming administration to "to respond to the dictator's threat."

   Meanwhile, in Western Europe, China is looking to increase its influence in Germany. Chinese officials are working on a deal that would see Chinese automakers move into German automotive factories slated for closure and are particularly interested in Volkswagen's sites. Germany has previously been greatly dependent on Russia for energy (and reports vary as to the reality of how much that has actually changed since the Ukraine conflict), but taking the word of the German government about it, Germany can ill afford to trade that out the Russian influence for Chinese influence on what is (at least for now) the largest economy in the European Union.

   The pieces continue to be moved around the board by the Axis. And while the CCP and Iran lay the groundwork for what both believe will eventually end with them individually dominating the world, the Biden/Harris administration (either by incompetence or by design) continues to make it easier for what's left of the Free World to fall. January 20th, 2025, can't get here fast enough. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but at least he is not losing a game of Chutes & Ladders when the adversaries of the United States are playing 3-D chess.

Read full Article
January 14, 2025
post photo preview
Iran's Military Presence in Venezuela is Expanding
A New Proxy State Thanks To Joe Biden

   The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a disruptive force in the Middle East since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Since the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a.k.a. the last Shah of Iran, Khomeini and his Mullahs set Iran on a course of destruction for both the modern Persian society that existed there at the time and their neighbors who did not subscribe to the Twelver Ja'afari Shia Islam imposed by Khomeini. This remains the path the theocratic Iranian regime follows today. Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anyone who exemplifies the concepts of Western Civilization remain a target of Iran or their proxies, either by open attack or terrorism.

   In recent years, Iran has decided to extend its influence beyond the Middle East, where it orchestrated attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia and financed terror in Western Europe and piracy throughout the region. This expansion was born out of Russia's war with Ukraine. Russia found itself unable or unwilling to end the conflict quickly. Once the U.S. and most of Europe started sending "aid" and sanctioning Russia, Putin found himself in need of help from friends and frenemies alike. A new Axis (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela) was formed as a result. An Axis that was, at least on the surface, allying with Russia against the U.S., NATO, and the Western World. Iran had been a long-standing ally of Russia, so it made sense that it would be part of this new Axis.

   A global financial partnership to end the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, known as the BRIC nation bloc (named for its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, and China) was formed in 2006, had its first summit in 2009, and South Africa joined the group in 2010 leading to an official name change to BRICS. However, this group of countries was largely unsuccessful and generally ignored by the world's financial powers as it was widely seen as a not-so-veiled effort by China to become the world's dominant economy. That changed in 2024 when China and Russia (two founding members) reached out to other nations that had issues with the various disastrous foreign policies enacted by the Biden/Haris administration, and a unified global financial force was born by expanding the group to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran (not to mention a long list of countries who have expressed interest in joining: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.) You will notice that some of these countries have been enemies for a very long time and, despite joining this group, remain adversarial, even hostile toward one another. Only the bungling of Joe Biden on the international stage brought some of these people together to work against the interests of the United States. So, "Let's Go Brandon!"

   It makes sense that Russia would want Iran to be a part of everything they are doing. As I pointed out before, they have been long-time allies due in large part to the amount of oil and lack of refining capacity in Iran. There are other reasons, but the sweetheart deal they worked out so long ago to refine oil for Iran made Russia an indispensable partner in the eyes of Mullahs and both sides rich. However, since the 1980s, there is another reason why Iran has become a valued ally of Russia. What most people don't know, despite the best efforts of people like myself who have been telling anyone who would listen for years now, is that Iran has been developing drone technology since the 1980s and is one of, if not the world leader in drone production (especially military drone production). Much of Russia's drone capabilities is a direct result of Iran.

   That takes us to the latest threat that Iran now poses. The other members of the Axis have developed an appreciation of the Iranian drone. So much so that Venezuela opened its borders to the Iranian proxy group Hezbollah, not only allowing them to operate within Venezuela but to actually "oversee" elections in some regions of the country since about 2017. Then, in 2022, Venezuela provided Iran with 1,000,000 hectares of "farmland for cultivation." Nicolás Maduro visited Tehran that year, where he signed a 20-year partnership agreement "on cooperation with Iran in various fields." It seems clear that what Iran has been "cultivating" is a new poxy state similar to Syria before the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, only this time, it's within striking distance of the United States. The IDF even warned everyone in March of 2024 that Iran was arming Venezuela with weapons that were "very capable of hitting the U.S."

   Maria Villarroel, writing for the Latin Times, revealed in her January 11, 2025, article that Iran had built a drone development factory and was training Venezuelan military personnel at the El Libertador air base in Venezuela. One of the wide range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) being produced there is the ZAMORA V-1, used for one-way attack missions. (And by the way, Iran has indicated that it intends to sell UAVs to other countries in the region, a practice that could - and most likely will - destabilize the geopolitical landscape in Latin America.)

   Iran developed its drone technology and is still developing its nuclear capabilities, making it extremely dangerous to Israel, all the Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who does not share their belief in the Twelver Ja'afari Shia tradition within its reach. Iran has strengthened the so-called Red-Green Axis, as it serves its purpose of advancing their belief in the eventual worldwide caliphate. And Iran has harnessed Venezuela as a proxy under the ruthless and illegitimate rule of Nicolás Maduro. All of this happened under the watch of Joe Biden, who, instead of working to prevent it, actually helped Iran to pay for it all. That includes an additional 10 billion dollars in sanctions relief issued three days after the 2024 Presidential election. So, thanks Joe, and one more time on your way out the door, "Let's Go Brandon!"

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals