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 ...
“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.”
It looks like the only states that might withhold their EC votes are those that Trump won. Biden will still get well over the 270 vote threshold.
“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.”
It looks like the only states that might withhold their EC votes are those that Trump won. Biden will still get well over the 270 vote threshold.
One inconvenient fact to your remains: the 2020 election and how states conduct their planned procedures falls under the “Original Jurisdiction” of the United States Supreme Court.
Alito and Thomas stated this. The other justices said - “We can’t understand how Texas and its citizens are hurt by it. { four states cheating with the consent, approval and encouragement and cover-up by their one-party state and local governments}.
In fewer words “Standing” and fancy words “Cogizant” but they said no other statement than that above.
They said absolutely nothing about whether the corrupt Democrats in those states stole the election or nullified the votes of Trump supporters illegally.
But, in this case Texas has been impacted directly, as the man they voted for was denied his office because four states conducted an election using illegal actions.
Under our republican system, the judicial branch can hear only actual, live, controversies between parties. Otherwise, it would be issuing advisory opinions, which is just legislating from the bench.
A live controversy has to be a dispute between parties who have a stake in the outcome, and can allege a real injury.
So, for example, if my state passes a law that infringes on freedom of religion of Hindus, I am not injured, and therefore, I have no standing to sue.
I have said elsewhere that the Texas lawsuit was frivolous, and was put on for show. Texas has no standing to dispute malfeasance in how PA runs its elections. Texas is not injured as a result of the malfeasance.
PDJT, of course, would have standing. But he could not take his case to SCOTUS, because SCOTUS is the highest court of the land, and generally hears only appeals.
But SCOTUS has original jurisdiction to hear lawsuits between states. In other words, when one state sues another, they don’t go to lower courts, they go straight to SCOTUS.
So Texas AG wanted the election case heard, and wanted to bypass the lower courts, so he sued PA, invoking SCOTUS’ original jurisdiction.
I have said earlier, the lawsuit was facially frivolous, and was only filed to placate PDJT’s supporters.
In New Amerika, NO ONE has ‘standing’ when it comes to trying to legally stand against the Deep State, Uniparty, Corrupt, Swampy, Scum, Cabal
So-what you’re saying is-you can go before a camera or on Twitter and state it’s a fact(!) but it’s a different story when perjury it’s a risk? Hmmm. Imagine that.
If we have no standing in a national election,we have no business being in that union.
If this was about Bush or Biden or Obama, how much you want to bet they would have ruled differently?
Perhaps William Barr should have filed suit to enforce Federal law.
The ruling classes have picked the President. The people of the United States do not have standing.
Maybe I’m wrong but that doesn’t seem to be a good example.
The voters of TX are harmed because the voters of PA, GA, etc weren’t playing by the rules they had already established by the constitution that governs us all.
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.
Two Judges voted to hear the case Alito and Clarence Thomas!!
“But, in this case Texas has been impacted directly, as the man they voted for was denied his office because four states conducted an election using illegal actions.”
—
I think there might be a catch-22 in there, though. The court would have to find the actions as illegal first before granting standing.
👎
What this means is there’s a bully on the street and mommy isn’t going to go out there to fight for you. You’ll have to do it yourself.
There is a list of positives that can be gleaned from this.
Only those that support perverts and baby killers have standing.
Lacking standing means that Texas doesn’t represent all of the voters who voted for President who had their votes disenfranchised by massive democrat fraud tilting the vote counts in Biden’s favor. At least, that’s what the robed jesters think. They should have had a clue that they should rule on the fraud when Texas’ suit was joined by states from nearly half of the country as well as senators and representatives from the various states that had democrat SOS and/or governor, with two of those states being those named as defendants in the lawsuit. History will not be kind to the robed jesters who proved that highly educated people can still act stupid.
Sure glad Trump stood the test for Kavanaugh and Barrett. What cowards.
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.