i mean, i would point you to chadha and i realize you can distinguish chadha. >> chadha is really different because of course there is an interest in the legislature in defending a procedure of the legislature. now, that's -- that isn't tough. but this is, because the only interest i can see here is the interest in the law being enforced. >> well, if i >> and that's -- i'm afraid of opening that door. >> well, it's understandable. mean, obviously nobody's suggesting, at least in the legislative branch, that this is a best practices situation. >> no, no. but think of another instance where that's happened, where in all of the 12 cases or whatever that what this court has said, without any special delegation of the power of the state or federal government to execute the law, without any special delegation, a legislator simply has the power, which a private citizen wouldn't have, to bring a lawsuit as a party or defend as a party to vindicate the interest in the law being enforced, the law he has voted for? now i can imagine arguments on both side, so i'm asking you only, is there any case you

i mean, i would point you to chadha and i realize you can distinguish chadha. >> chadha is really different because of course there is an interest in the legislature in defending a procedure of the legislature. now, that's -- that isn't tough. but this is, because the only interest i can see here is the interest in the law being enforced. >> and that's -- i'm afraid of opening that door. >> well, it's understandable. mean, obviously nobody's suggesting, at least in the legislative branch, that this is a best practices situation. >> no, no. but think of another instance where that's happened, where in all of the 12 cases or whatever that what this court has said, without any special delegation of the power of the state or federal government to execute the law, without any special delegation, a legislator simply has the power, which a private citizen wouldn't have, to bring a lawsuit as a party or defend as a party to vindicate the interest in the law being enforced, the law he has voted for? now i can imagine arguments on both side, so i'm asking you only, is there any case you can >> i can

i wonder weather the court in -- either the court in chadha -- chadha was court in not voicing a wish list. as to the question of glaad, which has been fully discussed already, i do want to say that after the authorization, and to seems to me quite troubling and inconsistent with the court's was inh -- i think i t the plurality, where if a party has standing, they need to have it in the first court that they are in. the rule just does not seem to say anything about the authority to litigate. theink that in addition, big problem here is the injury being complained of is inconsistent with the separation of powers. once the litigation is enacted, congress' authority to supervise it is at an end. it goes to vote in the executive branch. if the executive branch does it well or badly in the view of congress is in its domain. separation of powers will not be meaningful if all it means is that congress has to stay out unless it thinks the president is doing it badly. i think article to helps give shape to what kinds of injuries can become viable. finally, the two or three cases quoted by my c