New Podcast Episode: Snake-Charmer-Specific
Dan and I talk about the interim relief docket, and a redressability case
The latest episode of Divided Argument, Snake-Charmer-Specific, is up:
Moving with shockingly unpredictable efficiency, we respond to feedback, debate which of us is more composting-friendly, catch up on the emergency docket, and chip away at our end-of-Term backlog by digging into Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA.
As always we do appreciate your emails, but also please feel free to start a discussion below!
My understanding of the standing doctrine is that at least some of the reasoning for it is related to adversary presentation of the issues - we need to make sure that the "injured" party is properly motivated to give the best arguments to the courts. On that basis, does it maybe make sense that courts seem to relax (even subconsciously) standing requirements when they are already thinking they agree with the plaintiff's position? The injury requirement is less important there because the courts don't need the plaintiff to go all-out in pressing their case. It makes standing seem political/discretionary, but maybe that actually makes sense.