Speaking of judges, reader Kim makes a good point

…about my own swiftness to judge this judge. He writes:

Mark: resolving the issue on the basis of standing might not be the “courageous” answer, but it is the answer that is consistent with the idea of the rule of law that you rightly want to protect. A basic principle of American law is that questions can only be resolved by the courts if they are brought by individuals who themselves have suffered an actual injury caused by the action or policy they challenge that can be redressed by a decision in their favor. If you abandon the principle of standing, then the courts turn into (even more than they are right now) a second legistlature and shadow executive, where anyone who doesn’t like a decision reached by the political branches has a “do-over” in the courts. You and I might say the father should have standing, but the law of standing says that only the actual injured person can bring the case. This is basically the same rule that prevented the man who wanted “under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance, on the grounds that his daughter was subjected to a violation of her first amendment rights, from having his case heard.

Probably the biggest drawback of the rule of law is that it requires individuals who have certain roles and responsibilities to acquiesce in procedures and norms that prevent them from reaching the decisions they know are right. On the other hand, if it didn’t require this, it wouldn’t be the rule of law, it would be the rule of the conscience of the judges.

I agree with you on the merits, but I think it’s important to respect a judge who is trying to uphold the rule of law.

Fair enough. Mea culpa.