Political matters

Moreover, this court is willing to get involved in political question cases because those are often the issues that need resolution. While we acknowledge our inability to effect social change with the stroke of a pen, we believe that we can set the tide in the right direction. It is inappropriate to leave constitutional questions to the political branches, this is the purpose of the judiciary (see john marshall in Marbury v. Madison). We put things in the constitution to insulate them from majoritarian will, our involvement in political matters, hopefully, ensures that those matters are protected and enforced.

Politically accountable bodies cannot be entrusted to enforce any part of a document that exists to restrain them. Furthermore, Frankfurter’s “fragile legitimacy” is a misstatement. Federal courts’ credibility is quite robust, and in any event, the Courts mission should be to uphold the Constitution, not to worry about politics. We conclude that a judiciary that “ducks controversial issues to preserve its credibility is likely to avoid judicial review where it is needed most, to restrain highly popular, unconstitutional government actions. IF VIOLATION OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: Moreover, we do have judicially manageable standards.

Those standards exist in our duty to guard against unwarranted political intrusion on individual rights and democracy as we’ve generally defined it to exist among footnote four, penumbras, and the declaration of independence, natural rights, and fundamental rights. The issue is whether INDIVIDUAL has standing to appear before this mighty court. When a litigant is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant.

We invoke the Lujan Test to ensure there is proper adversarial presentation required by our prudential reading of Article III §2 “cases and controversies. ” INDIVIDUAL must demonstrate 1) sufferance of a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent; 2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant; 3) and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress the injury. STATE or person? If state: -otherwise go to step 1. INDIVIDUAL: 1) Injury-in-fact: 2) Causation: 3) Redressibility:

NO STANDING: 1) Injury-in-fact: 2) Causation: 3) Redressibility: NO STANDING will argue that granting standing will open the floodgates of litigation. That if we grant standing, we will tie up judicial resources. Moreover, deposit mobilization of commercial banks argues that granting standing will result in increased costs to the government and taxpayers. INDIVIDUAL has standing because I like broad standing. I believe that Massachusetts v. EPA was “the Brown v. Board of standing doctrine.

” I am comfortable with opening the floodgates because I believe that the substantive law and our Constitution is best served by a broad standing doctrine that allows more litigants to get before the court. Moreover, a narrow interpretation of standing doctrine is more likely to result in injustice than a broad standing doctrine because meritable claims are more likely to go unheard. Therefore, standing requirement has been met because, inter alia, injury-in-fact, causation, and redressibility have been shown.