English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

I find little to quarrel with in Dean Nichol's critique' of Justice Scalia's opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.2 I base my criticisms of the opinion on somewhat different grounds. I am sympathetic to one version of what Dean Nichol calls Justice Scalia's "broader agenda"3--reducing the role of the judiciary in making government policy. That agenda antedates Justice Scalia's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court; it has been ongoing since 1972.4 Many of its central elements have garnered support from every Justice who has served during the last two decades.5 However, Justice Scalia's opinion in Defenders cannot be characterized accurately as part of that agenda. As Dean Nichol recognizes, it seems to be instead the first step in implementing a quite different agenda-reducing the permissible role of Congress in government policymaking. This is the most basic of several criticisms I have of the opinion. I make three main points in this Comment. The first is that Justice Scalia's opinion in Defenders is an insupportable judicial

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Standing as a Judicially Imposed Limit on Legislative Power