Posted on 12/11/2020 5:32:22 PM PST by Michael.SF.
OK, Texas has been shot down on the basis of "Lack of standing"
As I understand the term, it refers to anyone or any case that a court simply does not want to take on; Thus they kick the can down the road.
Can a person, one far more knowledgeable of the law than I, explain this term and how it can be used or abused?
(Excerpt) Read more at freerepublic.com ...
I think it has to do with one state arguing over how another state does its election and the court says “It’s in another state, you have no standing”. In the broader sense those swing states tilt the federal election one way or the other.
And not a one of the nine would stand up for Trump and correct election fraud. Forget the Supreme Court. Trump worked so hard to get the three justices confirmed, and they all betray him.
Traitor Roberts has fallen on his @$$ and can’t get it up.
No Standing he has.
Basically Texas’ argument was that by the swing states not following their own legislature’s rules about voting, which means they’re not treating votes equally to other states, violating due process, etc.
SCOTUS said, “Well, you don’t have the ability as a state to litigate that because you weren’t directly injured by them doing that.”
“...they all betray him [and the Country/society]...”
We stopped making Scalias some time ago.
US Congress is the final arbiter of all presidential elections NOT the courts. We win when it goes to congress as each state gets one vote. We only need a few states to hold their electoral vote.
So-at some point you need to stop passing the buck.
The way I understand it one Party must prove they have been damaged by another party. So te SC must believe that there is no damage to any other state even if the offending state has advanced a candidate by fraud.
One simple example would be that if your neighbor were to build a doghouse on your property and you objected, you would have standing to sue him.
If your neighbor builds his doghouse on somebody else’s property in another state, that person has standing to sue your neighbor if that person objects - but you have no standing or legal recourse to sue the neighbor.
SCOTUS involvement was a longshot. They are a 9 member collective of gutless power hungry black robed tyrannts anyways. Michael Flynn was interviewed a couple weeks before this case was even thought up and filed and said that Trumps chances of a 2nd term was 100%. This was a nice try, but I still think Trump has something up his sleeve. EO13848 wasnt created just to have another EO out there. We’ll see.
If they then declare it to be in question, it goes to Congress.
I fear that this is the end.
Federalism means states can’t control how other states hold their elections. Imagine how you’d feel if California sued Texas saying that the way they gerrymander congressional districts is illegal and so they need to be redrawn.
The federal government can regulate federal elections and so the federal govt could have brought a claim under the voting rights act or similar. Or PA voters affected by disparate treatment between counties could bring these challenges directly.
SCOTUS: We are9-0 in favor of Civil War. Who is a conservative? Nobody. They are cowards
Wouldn’t Trump have standing?
I am certain to be less knowledgeable of the law than you, but I believe the simple answer is contained in the second sentence of the ruling: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
Just as New York can’t tell Texas how to run its elections.
I guess if cheating and fraud is going to go unpunished then our side needs to do the same. Our conservative counties should hold off reporting until commie counties have reported 100 percent and then run ballots thru as many times as needed to ensure victory. That seems to be acceptable by courts these days so why not?
The State legislators should have gone to the SC months ago when their SOS or Governor or their own state supreme courts usurped them by changing election rules/law.
The problem is that if you allege fraud in court, you have to point to specific inappropriate actions. It’s called a “heightened standard of pleading.” Giuliani couldn’t come up with evidence of fraud that they were willing to swear to before a court.
Gen. Flynn posted on his twitter page for everyone to take a deep breath...there was more to come. Also posted an informative video by Tracey Beanz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.