Standing

[holipsism]

Montana Scott Wrote:Who's the dumbass now?

That would be you, CLOWN.

Would somebody get this jackass out of the discussion? The so-called "State," which doesn't exist in the first place, is supposed to have "automatic standing" in a criminal case when they make an accusation or an opinion? Then why is a trial needed in the first place, Dummy? Oh yeah, that's right...

“Courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies” United States vs. ICC, 337 U.S. 426, 430 (1949)?

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/justiciability

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.

What else do you need, Jackass?

Also, don't try and blame Marc for anything. You came out of your face at another member and I checked your dumb ass on it, so if you've got a problem with that take it up with me, Jack Ass. So far you haven't busted one grape in this standing topic. All you've shown is that underneath all your legal pretensions you are just another statist seeking a legal loop hole within the very system you, fundamentally, feel is LEGITIMATE.