The extremist majority on the Supreme Court has been messing with another important guardrail for our system: standing. Toward the end of this term, they seemed to pull it out of a hat to advance a political agenda. I dive into how they did it and what it means, in today’s piece. https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/standing-out-of-nothing?sd=pf
Standing, Out of Nothing

This is Part 3 of a series examining the Supreme Court in light of its recent, radical rulings. Today’s topic is “standing”—the principle where the Court is only supposed to take on cases where there has been a real injury or harm to a party. A key curb upon the Supreme Court’s power is “standing.” That is to say, the Court is only supposed to hear cases where at least one of the parties has a basis to “stand” before it and plead its case. The root of this limitation lies directly in the Constitution within Article III, which says the judiciary can only decide an actual “case or controversy.”

The Status Kuo
@jaykuo that's what's absolutely upset/annoyed me the most. There's so much that normally wouldn't have even been a conversation because of lack of standing.

@Jedipaperboy @jaykuo I am FAR from a legal scholar, but I always thought something actually had to happen or a party was harmed in some way before a case could get very far, much less to the Supreme Court.

This website thing was “well if THIS happens, then maybe THAT will happen.” And if that’s all you have to prove, then isn’t any case valid?