The Supreme Court is tricky with some of their rulings and terms. The terms standing and justiciability are two of those tricky terms in which they more of the less mean what the Supreme Court wants them to mean. The term justiciability is a limit on whether or not the court feels that it can exercise its judicial authority. This term is tricky in the fact that it say whether the court feels it can answer a case. This term was used to decide in the case Goldwater v Carr. The term standing determines whether the suit actually has a controversy. The party bringing the suit needs to show injury to a protected interest or right and personal or proprietary damage. The standing must be real and not hypothetical. The standards of justiciability and
…show more content…
The case was brought on by Barry Goldwater and other members of congress that felt Carter could not terminate the treaty. The Supreme Court heard the case and then decided that the case was a non-justiciable case. The Supreme Court said that the case raised a political question that needed to be resolved by other branches. The Supreme Court most likely could have settled the case and answered the question of law, but that would have meant that they were deciding a case between the other two branches of government. They were deciding a case between the legislative branch and executive branch, which can get pretty heated. Therefore, the Supreme Court wanted to stay out of it, so they said it was a political question they could not answer. Making the terms of justiciability unclear because it is sometimes based on whether the Supreme Court wants to answer the question of law like in this …show more content…
It states that there must me a direct injury to the rights or protected interests of a party, along with personal or proprietary damage. In the case Frothingham v Mellon, a taxpayer disagreed with treasuries spending in a congressional act, so she said that it violated the 10th amendment the reserved rights for the states. The Court decided on this case saying that there was no direct or immediate injury because it affected millions of people. They also stated the case was political, not judicial. The Supreme Court was saying that the case had not standing because it affected many and not directly just her, which by the definition the case did not have standing. In Elk Grove U.S.D. v Newdow, a man brought a case to the Supreme Court saying that his daughter having to say “under god” in the pledge of allegiance was a violation of her first amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision said that because he did not have sufficient custody of his daughter, he did not have standing. There is nowhere in the definition of standing that talks about having enough custody to bring a case to court. The case directly affected his daughter’s rights, yet because it was such a big political question the courts did not want to decide on it. So, saying it again the term standing is very unclear and easily manipulable by the courts as shown in the Newdow case. The comparison of the two cases shows that one the term standing was correctly used,
The case was brought on by Barry Goldwater and other members of congress that felt Carter could not terminate the treaty. The Supreme Court heard the case and then decided that the case was a non-justiciable case. The Supreme Court said that the case raised a political question that needed to be resolved by other branches. The Supreme Court most likely could have settled the case and answered the question of law, but that would have meant that they were deciding a case between the other two branches of government. They were deciding a case between the legislative branch and executive branch, which can get pretty heated. Therefore, the Supreme Court wanted to stay out of it, so they said it was a political question they could not answer. Making the terms of justiciability unclear because it is sometimes based on whether the Supreme Court wants to answer the question of law like in this …show more content…
It states that there must me a direct injury to the rights or protected interests of a party, along with personal or proprietary damage. In the case Frothingham v Mellon, a taxpayer disagreed with treasuries spending in a congressional act, so she said that it violated the 10th amendment the reserved rights for the states. The Court decided on this case saying that there was no direct or immediate injury because it affected millions of people. They also stated the case was political, not judicial. The Supreme Court was saying that the case had not standing because it affected many and not directly just her, which by the definition the case did not have standing. In Elk Grove U.S.D. v Newdow, a man brought a case to the Supreme Court saying that his daughter having to say “under god” in the pledge of allegiance was a violation of her first amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision said that because he did not have sufficient custody of his daughter, he did not have standing. There is nowhere in the definition of standing that talks about having enough custody to bring a case to court. The case directly affected his daughter’s rights, yet because it was such a big political question the courts did not want to decide on it. So, saying it again the term standing is very unclear and easily manipulable by the courts as shown in the Newdow case. The comparison of the two cases shows that one the term standing was correctly used,