stand in the place where you live

In order to bring a lawsuit to court, a person must have a case. You need to show the court that you've been harmed in some way that some law offers a solution, and that you have brought in along with you a person that is responsible with providing that solution. Someone steals your bike? There's a law that says the stealer wronged you and owes you the bike or some money.

But what if the harm is less direct? What if you didn't get the morning paper because the paperboy's bike was stolen by your would-be defendant? What if, as a taxpayer, you determine that the government is wrongly spending your money? Imagine a docket full of irate taxpayers.

Federal courts say that, generally, taxpayers can't challenge government spending because the harm they suffer is too minor and indistinct from the harm suffered by all taxpayers. "Taxpayer suits" against state and federal governments are usually thrown out unless the plaintiff can show a more direct injury resulting from the government action.

A recent case in North Carolina, though, shows us that we might see the opposite (more permissive) approach in some state courts. The North Carolina Supreme Court, in Goldston v. State, overruled a Court of Appeals decision that had followed the familiar federal route of denying taxpayer standing (standing = having a case, as discussed above). The NC Supreme Court noted that North Carolina is not beholden to federal standing principles, and, citing several old cases as precedent, allowed the plaintiff's standing on the basis of their being taxpayers challenging a state expenditure.

It makes some sense that taxpayers could sue in this case. The case deals with the state's potentially illegal use of some funds that had been set aside for a specific purpose...so the case is about taxes, expenditures, and so on.

But, a permissive policy of plaintiff standing could have some interesting results (worth keeping an eye on). The problem of not being directly enough injured has baned the existence of more than a few would-be plaintiffs; notably, environmental groups frustrated by government action or inaction.

Will be fun to watch.

dc is filled with honkeys

i live in downtown dc about a 10 minute walk from work. surely as the day is long, this walk is accompanied by a steady drumbeat of car horns.

honking is not going to make a stupid driver less stupid. further, it is fundamentally wrong to honk at a pedestrian that has the little white man walk signal. fundamentally. it is no less evil to honk at the car that has graciously stopped for the right-of-way-having pedestrian. you are evil, honker, and should not be tolerated in proper society. prisons were built for your type.

a bit hyperbolic? imagine the honk in another context. what if a person walking down the sidewalk, when the slower fellow veers slightly diagonal in front, yelled "hooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!"? blind person steps in front of him, "blaaaaaaaannnngggggg!" Person's a lunatic, no?

My notion is that the horn is the refuge of the little man trying to be big. Worrisome is the societal acceptance of the honk. It is a moral problem.