Does CRT have a leg standing?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 41
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
The OP was quite clearly using the word "standing" in a different context
What context?
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
Have you really never heard the expression something doesn’t have “a leg to stand on”
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
only people and never ideas have standing before the law

The OP was quite clearly using the word "standing" in a different context
oromagi seems to have a valid question because these two quotes from your #29 are in opposition. Let's recall that the OP precedes "standing" with "leg," so I am obviously anthropomorphizing the idea of "standing," therefore, negating your legal issue. Or, if you will, no anthropomorphism because we also refer to the supports of tables and chairs as legs on which they "stand." It is a thing, not a person, and still has standing before the law. A contract, a thing and an idea, has standing before the law. Your injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability are all covered matters even through a contract and not a person.

I said:
Theory is not empiric, pure and simple. Until it is no longer theory [either proven wrong, like geocentrism, or substantiated by empiric evidence, it remains conceptual.
You said an idea cannot have standing, but, tell me, what is a law before it is enacted? An idea. Action taken by our constitutional representatives to consider a bill [an idea] and, if approved by signature, the idea becomes law, just as sufficient empiric evidence turns theory to fact. Are you really going to tell me that an idea cannot have standing if sufficient evidence is presented that it is mere formality that alters its designation? Best look at the definition of locus standi. In science, a theory proven fact only means that the theory was always a truth, we just could not prove it. Locus standi has the same understanding. Therefore, a truth may always have standing; it just needs sufficient proof.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
--> @oromagi
Have you really never heard the expression something doesn’t have “a leg to stand on”
  • That's not a different context.  Note that fauxlaw ends with a pun,  "CRT has no leg standing, or one to stand upon
    • Fauxlaw is too a good a writer to mean, "CRT has no leg or one leg to stand on." 
    • "In the case of CRT, the empiric evidence must demonstrate a current [racist] law or gov't department policy,"
      • Fauxlaw's context is clearly  US law and whether CRT can support a claim of harm within that framework, the most apt description of fauxlaw's context is "legal standing."  We agree that CRT cannot support that claim but for different reasons.   That is a our context- legal standing. 
      • "no leg to stand on" is NOT the context.  That is fauxlaw's conclusion- ( CRT's claim lacks support)which he playfully expresses using a pun on the common idiom.

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
The OP was a criticism of CRT, saying it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Your response: “Uhm acktually, CRT can never be a plaintiff or a defendant in a case so of course it doesn’t have standing” 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3

--> @oromagi
The OP was a criticism of CRT, saying it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Your response: “Uhm acktually, CRT can never be a plaintiff or a defendant in a case so of course it doesn’t have standing” 
that's right.  We agree CRT has no legal standing- fauxlaw says it because there is insufficient evidence of the harms of racism claimed by CRT, I say that even before the consideration of evidence comes the impossibility of putting ideas on trial.  If we want to discuss evidence, we need a viable plaintiff first.  The evidence of the harms of racism are that plaintiff's burden to detail.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
But why make a post like that? Nobody thinks CRT has legal standing like a person would, Fauxlaw least of all. It doesn’t engage the OP and it doesn’t add anything interesting or new to a potential reader, and you have to know that. That post probably took you two or three minutes to make, you could’ve listened to your favorite song or something instead. Just don’t get it lol 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@thett3
--> @oromagi
But why make a post like that? Nobody thinks CRT has legal standing like a person would, Fauxlaw least of all.
Well, that's just not so.  Here's fauxlaw less than an hour ago in post #34

It is a thing, not a person, and still has standing before the law. A contract, a thing and an idea, has standing before the law. Your injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability are all covered matters even through a contract and not a person.
This is false.   The only entities that possess civil rights (and are therefore entitled to a hearing before the court) are persons or a person.  No contract, thing, or idea has any standing before the law. 

fauxlaw continues:

Are you really going to tell me that an idea cannot have standing if sufficient evidence is presented that it is mere formality that alters its designation? Best look at the definition of locus standi.
Yes, every lawyer in America will tell fauxlaw the same thing: no idea can have standing.  Fauxlaw tells you to look up locus standi, failing to note that I already provided the definition and used that definition to falsify his premise in POST #8.

It doesn’t engage the OP and it doesn’t add anything interesting or new to a potential reader, and you have to know that.
Disagree.  You are complaining that I took the time to define CRT (which OP failed to do) and to define locus standi which the original poster now recommends to us after failing to notice that I've already done so.  My post agreed with the conclusion but falsified the premise, which is certainly more direct engagement with the OP than anything you have posted to this forum.

Just don’t get it lol 
Don't worry, I'm sure you'll figure it out some day.


thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@oromagi
I am being a little too harsh with you, so I deleted my last post and apologize! I really don’t think the OP was at all talking about CRT having legal standing like a plaintiff but that’s okay we can just forget about it 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@thett3
@oromagi
You're both talking around the issue that is my OP: CRT is not, itself, a problem; it is the people who think that it is a problem needing solving. However, no one pushing CRT will, and perhaps cannot, demonstrate a single CURRENT law or agency policy whose text has offensive, racist commentary. Everyone wrings their hands over Jim Crow, which was dismissed by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and any law or policy extant then has been dissolved and re-written. It is why I maintain the system is not racist; individuals are, and they exist on both sides of the debate.