SCOTUS; WTH Hell "Standing"?

If no one has standing, then no suit could ever be brought, so how can it be fixed?

You are missing the boat.

The State Legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin have ABSOLUTE, NON-REVIEWABLE AUTHORITY over this process and over the outcome.

They have consented to the appointment of Electors for Biden and Harris, as is their right to do.

You are correct that "no suit could ever be brought", but you are WRONG to presume that suits in courts of law have the possibility of overruling the actions of these four legislatures - because they don't, in fact, they can't.

Step back and take a look, objectively.

I pointed out the lawsuit was frivolous, and I was spot-on. Even the two solid conservative justices agreed. They said they would let the complaint be filed, but would have not granted any other relief. In other words, TX lawsuit against other states can go to SCOTUS, but the request to overturn election results would be denied.

My accurate prediction does not insult your intelligence. It just points out that on this topic, I happen to be more informed. I am sure on other topics, you are.

So I insulted neither you nor your intelligence. But then you go on and insult me, and then ask for suggestions?

I often tell my clients: “You are paying me a LOT OF MONEY, to give you my opinion. Not to tell you what makes you feel good, but to tell you my honest opinion.”

Here in FR, I have been giving my honest (and accurate) opinion and people just insult me. If we are incapable of rational discussion and intelligent analysis, then maybe we deserve to be manipulated and deceived.

you are WRONG to presume that suits in courts of law have the possibility of overruling the actions of these four legislatures - because they don't, in fact, they can't.

The judicial branch was created at it’s core to interpret the laws that exist, and help ensure they are enforced.

Said laws were in almost all cases passed by PREVIOUS Legislatures, not current ones. In almost all cases those laws required the signature of Governors as well.

If laws are broken, including by CURRENT Legislatures, then the Supreme Court has unquestioned authority to rule on those illegal actions.

In this case, or set of cases everywhere, relief is being sought again because existing laws were not followed. In fact I believe the PA Legislature, or at least a significant portion of it, tried to enjoin this suit claiming that laws were broken. If nothing else, their support was voiced.

The Supreme Court is the court of last resort and therefore only accountable to itself. They have the right to weigh in and pass judgement on any matter before them, but especially matters of whether laws were appropriately enforced or not, and especially more-so when the state legislatures themselves are asking them to act. And this is a Federal election, not simply a state one, so they could have remanded actions back to the state for correction per existing law as needed for final Federal election results.

They should have at least allowed arguments to go forth. This ruling indicates they are simply not strong, or smart enough, to deal with the issue as their duty demends.

See post #123. The rest of your typically sanctimonious post was rightfully ignored. There are many scholars of law, especially at the highest levels of federal law interpretation, who aren’t lawyers themselves.

Post 123 is gibberish and in no way consistent with 2+ centuries of jurisprudence and precedent.

I would correct you, but you have shown yourself incapable of processing ideas adverse to your own.

That post was disproving the poster’s assertion that state legislatures were untouchable by US Supreme Court actions and rulings, which is obviously wrong.

The similar myth that is being presented by many that the US Supreme Court can’t rule on state matters in general is hogwash. It’s akin to those that try to claim the President has no authority over his own AG with regard to law enforcement.

These myths are only being put forth to assist with the current lawlessness that is taking place before us, by removing various forms of lawful oversight that rightfully exist.

The display of arrogance presented in these attempted false legal claims only makes them less believable. It’s perfectly akin to these know it all supposed scientists telling us we must trust and accept some unknown and unproven vaccine injection that most of us don’t even need.

Face it. The days of supposed intellectuals trying to be our overlords, by simply telling us what we know not to be true over and over, are gone. And anyone putting our Lord dear God’s name in heir handle should especially be questioned, when their words speak of anything other than righteousness.

OK, since you are ALMOST respectful, I will address the substance of the original argument.

=====>
If laws are broken, including by CURRENT Legislatures, then the Supreme Court has unquestioned authority to rule on those illegal actions.
====>

Wrong. The Constitution, as interpreted through 200+ years of precedent puts severe limits on SCOTUS’ authority to rule on illegal actions. Just because a state law is illegal does not mean SCOTUS can rule on it.

=====>

The Supreme Court ... (has) the right to weigh in and pass judgement on any matter before them, but especially matters of whether laws were appropriately enforced or not, and especially more-so when the state legislatures themselves are asking them to act.

====>

Not true. Not only does this bold assertion contradict the Constitution and 200+ years of precedent, but also, following this line of logic would lead to more judicial tyranny.

Once SCOTUS proclaims that it has “the right to weigh in and pass judgement on any matter before them” then all lower courts will feel the same. Federal trial courts will, willy-nilly, hear any and all grievances and nullify state laws at will.

Your argument that state legislators joining the case make it stronger is also wrong. Otherwise, if a minority of legislators can’t pass a bill, they will just sue in Fed court.

Your argument is SIMPLY FALSE, and contradicts our republican system of separation of powers.

====>

And this is a Federal election, not simply a state one, so they could have remanded actions back to the state for correction per existing law as needed for final Federal election results.

====>

Again, false. The premise of your argument is that a Federal election creates Federal jurisdiction, which is not true. People cite Bush v Gore, but as I have said elsewhere (and maybe will recite again here, if you ask nicely) that is NOT what SCOTUS ruled in Bush v Gore.

And if SCOUTS lacks jurisdiction, it cannot order the case remanded to lower courts to “correct” anything. SCOTUS, lacking jurisdiction, MUST abstain. Abstention is far different from remanding with an order to “correct” something.

Here is the problem: Federal litigation is complex and rare. Per Constitutional mandate, Fed courts are courts of limited and enumerated jurisdiction - patents, trademarks, copyrights, bankruptcy, civil rights, etc. Very few categories of lawsuits can be heard by Fed courts. Your garden variety lawsuits - divorce, contracts, leases, partnership disputes, personal injury, real estate zoning, will contests, fraud, auto accidents, easements, mineral rights, evictions, and everything else - all go to state court.

Overwhelming majority of lawyers don’t litigate in Fed court. So there are lots and lots of false information out there, not just from laypersons, but also lawyers who have never set foot in Fed court.

Standing is a Federal concept, anchored in our Constitutional principles of separation of powers. Loosen up the concept of standing, and you will open up the floodgates to judicial tyranny the likes of which you have never seen before.

More horse manure, in general trying to claim the US Supreme Court can’t rule in state matters, ever. While they may strive not to, and likely won’t on purely state matters, but in the case of a Federal election, their ability to intercede is clearly manifest in how that election effects the Federal government, and the core reason for the Federal election even existing is born in the US Constitution.

At least you finally mentioned Bush vs. Gore in 2000. However your goal was clearly and expectantly to try to deflect from the legal and accepted action of the US Supreme Court ruling in Florida state matters in that instance, of course.

Another fail, despite your grandiose attempts at re-writing history as we know it. Now, I have Christmas matters to attend, which clearly take precedent over your unending desire to distract me with your support this horrible Supreme Court decision, and the stolen election.

yeah that would put texas in charge of deciding when PA law applies and how PA should enforce it. this is a problem for federal election law to solve.