been saying someone does or does not have standing. The judges in this country and the ABA attorneys in this country attend the same law schools. For this reason, I would think they would both start with an identical definition of "standing".
So in a given case, the attorney is appearing before the judge with his plaintiff. Having attended the same universities in the USA, for purposes of discussion let's pick the University of Wisconsin Law School for no other reason than it is an ABA approved law school.
So the judge went to the U of Wisconsin at Madison Law School and the attorney went to the U of Wisconsin at Madison Law School, an ABA school.
It's not that the judge is a UK barrister graduate of a UK school and the plaintiff attorney is an ABA graduate, it is that they both went to the U of Wisconsin, an ABA law school.
In other works they both have the same definitions of "standing".
This is what I don't understand. It appears that at some point (what point?) the judge starts using UK standing while the attorney is still using ABA school standing.
From my layperson understanding, then, the term "standing" means they have the right to sue. Obviously, the plaintiff's attorney thinks they have "standing" or they wouldn't be in the courtroom. But the judge says the plaintiff does not have standing. Since they both graduate from the same school, then why do they not utilize the identical definition of "standing". What happened? When the attorney became a judge, did he suddently start using UK barristor terminology (I know he did not) but something changed.
What happened to cause this rift in definition?
I do not understand when or where or for what reason the judge now has a different definition of "standing" than the plaintiff attorney does when they have attended the same ABA school.
Is this what is going on?
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, o