Posted on 12/11/2020 5:32:22 PM PST by Michael.SF.
“Not directly injured? Every state that nominated a slate of electors for a particular candidate not named Biden got the shift. Meaning the majority of voters in those states got their votes nullified.”
Not exactly. Our votes for a slate of Electors still stand and our votes were not nullified.
I would not be able to file a complaint against someone who committed a crime against you as I would lack standing.
Judges have expanded the meaning until it is nearly impossible to have standing.
I have been told I lack "standing" to file a complaint against a government bureaucrat despite the fact that his actions did damage to me because "he was acting according to the laws as he understood them even if the understanding was incorrect," which is a big wimp out because it means the judge in question is mind reading.
bump
Is there any more road left? Where, where?
“Trump worked so hard to get the three justices confirmed”
I never expected anything good from Gorsuch or Barrett. They came across as liberal to me. I was iffy on Kavanaugh.
A key point that no one has mentioned is that a “generalized grievance” does not confer standing.
A recent example was a suit that someone brought against the construction of the border wall. The suit alleged that Congress had appropriated the funds for other purposes and that the President did not have the authority to take the money and use it instead for whatever he wanted. The court did not decide whether that argument was valid. Instead, it dismissed the case for lack of standing. The plaintiff was not, for example, a landowner whose property was being taken to build the wall. He was just a citizen/taxpayer who didn’t like what Trump was doing. That wasn’t enough.
The same thing applied to Lin Wood’s suit in Georgia. He alleged various illegalities and irregularities in the election, but he himself was not a candidate for office. He had only the “generalized grievance” that any Georgia voter would have. Hence he lacked standing.
I think that Sidney Powell’s suit in Michigan included at least one person who was a would-be Trump elector. Someone in that situation has the more particular interest of having been deprived of membership in the Electoral College. A showing of that sort is necessary for standing.
Texas is certainly affected by how other states conduct their elections for federal office – but so is every state and every person in the country. If Texas gerrymanders its House districts in the reapportionment next year, the reduction in the number of Democrats elected will affect anyone who is affected by House votes (i.e., everyone in the country, not to mention a lot of Canadians and Mexicans and whatnot), but that doesn’t mean that other states or their citizens would have standing to sue Texas over the redistricting.
State of course have standing to bring up lawsuits against other states to scotus.
Its the only court that can hear and rule on these cases.
It’s over with. We’ve been promised everything from God will make sure that Trump wins on election day to state legislatures naming their own slate of electors favoring Trump to the Release The Kracken to appealing all the way to SCOTUS who will save us. We’ve been lied to and bullshitted every step of the way. And that ought to make each of us wonder why.
Texas isnt demanding they have any particular laws.
They are saying however, that states must follow the laws they have decided to enact, otherwise those votes should be considered damaging to the states that do follow their election laws.
Standing is a court-defined conclusion of courts decision whether or not the litigant has a stake that the court will recognize. Courts use this to duck and to take cases.
Examples in election. Voters do not have a stake. Candidates do.
Courts are masters of deception. Last place to go for an honest accounting. In defamation , "actual malice" is a legal term of art that has no relationship at all to dark heart actual malice. The courts are totally transparent about this nonsense redefinition of the usual meaning of words.
Federal courts are a mix of taking power to the feds and globalism.
Because wuen it comes to federal elections it does have an damaging impact onmother stages that follow lawful voting processes
Damages election integrity and lets cheating states alter elections
Damages the nation and everyones trust in voting
Each of the responses filed by the defendants cited Lack of Standing as one of the four basic reasons Texas would not prevail.
As more states filed to intervene (join as a party) we even talked about it here saying the grievances were no longer specific to Texas... they are generalized grievances instead of being unique to Texas.
Another reason for getting called on lack of standing is when a favorable ruling cannot redress the injury. For example, Ohio said hey... the question on the Electoral Clause needs to be answered, but, we do not agree with the Relief being sought by Texas.
In the end, SCOTUS made the right call.
I learned a lot from watching this case, and listening to both sides. There are a lot of smart people out there who are kind enough to share their insights, even when we don't always agree politically. It really was fascinating.
Hope that helps.
Every person who voted was injured by what they did. What are they smoking up at SCOTUS?
Either I'm a numbskull, or discouragement has short-circuited my brain a little. Who or what is ODNI?
Before that can happen, both Houses would have to reject electoral votes fraudulently submitted. (3 USC 15)
I don’t see that happening.
I thought Trump joined the Texas case with the USSC.. doesn’t Trump HAVE standing? Please help me legal eagles... thanks...
Basically, there is no objective law, like physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. The justices decide how they want to rule according to their politics, then concoct some rhetoric to back it up, right?
Of course they were injured. What is wrong with everybody in the scotus? Or anyone else for that matter. Either drinking alcohol, smoking pot, or on opioids, or under severe anxiety related stress. Where is any clear, honest thinking going on?
As more States filed to "intervene" it further supported the idea of a generalized grievance.
If your complaint is a generalized grievance you lack standing and the case is tossed.
SCOTUS made the right call here.
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.