According to http://www.civilcase.net/
Civil Case Explanation
In the common law, civil law alludes to area of laws and justice that impact on the legal standing of people. Civil law, in this sense, is mostly alluded to in comparison to criminal law, which is that body of law concerning the state against people ( including incorporated bodies ) where the state depends on the power given it by statutory law.
Civil law could also be compared to army law, executive law and constitutional law
( the laws ruling the political and law making process ), and global law.
Where there are legal options for factors behind action by people inside any of these areas of law, it is so civil law. Civil law courts offer a forum for deciding disputes concerning torts ( like accidents, neglectfulness, and libel ), contract disputes, the probate of wills, trusts, property disputes, executive law, commercial law, and any other non-public matters that involve personal parties and associations including central authority departments.
An action by an individual ( or legal equivalent ) against the lawyer general is a civil matter, but when the state, being represented by the prosecutor for the solicitor general, or another agent for the state, takes action against an individual ( or legal equivalent including a state office ), this is public law, not civil law.
The objectives of civil law are dissimilar from other kinds of law. In civil law there’s the plan to right a wrong, respect an understanding, or settle an argument.
If there’s a victim (This infers that there is not always a victim), they get compensation, and the individual that is the root of the incorrect pays, this being a civilized form of, or legal alternative choice to, vengeance.
If it is an equity matter, there’s regularly a pie for division and it becomes allotted by a method of civil law, doubtless invoking the doctrines of equity. In public law the target is mostly deterrence, and retribution. An action in criminal law does not always preclude an action in civil law in common law states, and may supply a mechanism for compensation to the victims of crime. Such a situation took place when O.J. Simpson was ordered to pay damages for murder after being acquitted of the criminal charge of murder. Civil law in common law nations customarily pertains to both common law and the law of equity, which while now combined in administration, have different customs, and have traditionally operated to different doctrines, though this dualism is increasingly being put aside so there’s one coherent body of law rationalized around common beliefs of law.
So you know by experiencing it? Because according to that, a civil case can easily be brought over a constitutional infringement. To just dismiss a case by saying it is without merit is to deny someone due process, which according to wikipedia is defined as the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.
If a judge denies due process, make it VERY public and vote him out. They are elected officials as well as the rest. All I'm saying is, the legal system might have made it difficult, but not impossible. It only takes a persistent individual to make it happen.
Federal judges are chosen by the POTUS, if I remember correctly, so voting them out isn't an option. But to allow state level judges to use "lack of standing" as a catch all loophole for them to not hear cases they don't want to is OUR FAULT for letting it happen.