undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxracy10mo ago0 comments

There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering.

"Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.

0 comments

physPop10mo ago

This isn't law, its journalism, and frankly the article is well written and asks a good question -- why are these (extremely wealthy) universities finances so brittle?

dmurray10mo ago

The question is self-answering as soon as you read the first two sentences though.

> Columbia...has an endowment of roughly $15bn. Mr Trump’s administration withheld a mere $400m in federal funding.

With the best investing in the world, that $15bn might throw off 1 billion a year in perpetuity. $400m (a year) is a very serious chunk of the university's budget.

ryandrake10mo ago

Exactly... Scaling the numbers down: It's as if a person has $1.5M net worth, and their investments produce $100K per year. They are also simply being handed $40K per year from someone they disagree with, but who otherwise reliably provides that income. Are they just going to turn that money down because of this ethical disagreement? A lot of people wouldn't.

1 more reply

xracyOP10mo ago

It isn't law, but why does the principle exist in law? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Why would judges who have to make decisions about people's lives do this? Is there a good reason for it?

Yes there is.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse