? All I'm saying is that immediate harm is not required for a lawsuit. I know you think you're being smart but you're overanalyzing what I said for no reason.
No, not at all. Immediate harm was never the criteria we were discussing. It was any harm. It's always been legal to argue that you have a reasonable suspicion that a law will affect you personally. Even if it has yet to do so. That can be argued in a court of law. That is not what I'm objecting to at all
What I'm objecting to is the current practice in conservative legal thought process where you can sue when you have no reasonable expectation that it will affect you personally. We've seen that all over conservative legal arguments lately.
Um that's not true at all. You are absolutely allowed to challenge the precedence of laws even if you have been yet to be directly affected.
That's something completely different. You can tell by your use of the word "yet".
How is that "completely different"
Why did you use the word "yet"?
because you are allowed to challenge laws even if they have yet to affect your life
Again, why are you using the word yet? Think about it. When you have you'll understand the difference.
? All I'm saying is that immediate harm is not required for a lawsuit. I know you think you're being smart but you're overanalyzing what I said for no reason.
No, not at all. Immediate harm was never the criteria we were discussing. It was any harm. It's always been legal to argue that you have a reasonable suspicion that a law will affect you personally. Even if it has yet to do so. That can be argued in a court of law. That is not what I'm objecting to at all
What I'm objecting to is the current practice in conservative legal thought process where you can sue when you have no reasonable expectation that it will affect you personally. We've seen that all over conservative legal arguments lately.