Posted on 10/22/2022 3:36:33 PM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is slow-walking its response to a federal court order mandating that the agency forfeit records pertaining to President Joe Biden’s March 2021 executive order that directed federal agencies to develop plans for federal interference in state election administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Everyone in the DoJ should be exiled to St. Lawrence island.
This will be pulled out of the hat in 2 1/2 weeks. Watch these election to be nullified.
Hold ‘em in contempt and from march them before a judge.
Oops, frog
Traitorgarland and his DOJ continue to give aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States.
Bump
Good suggestion.
The impossibility of biden having garnered the votes attributed to him in 2020 looms.
Boy, did we ever dodge a bullet with McConnell refusing to put his Supreme Court nomination up for a vote!
WEll, clearly, the fix is in. If you doubted it before, there can be no confusion, now.
The test will be the 2022 midterm elections. The WORLD knows the dhimmicraps are shoveling against the tide. If they, somehow, pull out ANY notion of victory, the case for fraus will be writ large.
But...will the right have the testicular fortitude to face down this abomination?
Time will tell.
well, the dems didnt meet his extortion payment, because the TURDle doesnt do nothing without receiving a payment.
“____ has no standing will be what the courts will repeat after the mid-terms.
Yes, then he turned around and voted for him to be AG. As AG he is a better position to do harm yesterday, today and tomorrow. A SCJ can't sic the fblie on you on a whim. What did we gain? Keeping this turd off the SC was good. Keeping him out of our .gov all together would have been better. Knowing Mitch, this could have been the plan all along.
Agreed! It has already been proven that nothing and no one is held accountable for the voting fraud of 2020. Thus, rinse and repeat!! Everyone will know the midterms “were” a fraud, but nothing will be done about it.
There is a good reason for that. If any individual can bring a suit for such purposes, the lines to the courthouse(s) will never end. The courts will be overwhelmed and brought to a standstill.
“Standing to sue” means that party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1364, 31 L.Ed.2d 636.
And more...
Standing is a concept utilized to determine if a party is sufficiently affected so as to insure (sic) that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court; it is the right to take the initial step that frames legal issues for ultimate adjudication by court or jury. State ex rel. Cartwright v. Oklahoma Tax Com’n, Okl., 653 P.2d 1230, 1232.
The requirement of “standing” is satisfied if it can be said that the plaintiff has a legally protectible and tangible interest at stake in the litigation. Guidry v. Roberts, La.App., 331 So.2d 44, 50.
Standing is a jurisdictional issue which concerns power of federal courts to hear and decide cases and does not concern ultimate merits of substantive claims involved in the action. Weiner v. Bank of King of Prussia, D.C.Pa., 358 F.Supp. 684, 695.
The doctrine emanates from the case or controversy requirement of the Constitution and from general principles of judicial administration, and seeks to insure (sic) that the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness. Campaign Clean Water, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus, D.C.Va., 361 F.Supp. 689, 692.
Standing is a requirement that the plaintiffs have been injured or been threatened with injury by governmental action complained of, and focuses on the question of whether the litigant is the proper party to fight the lawsuit, not whether the issue itself is justiciable. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. v. U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., D.C.N.C., 431 F.Supp. 203, 218.
Essence of standing is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it. Sandoval v. Ryan, Colo.App., 535 P.2d 244, 247.
So it seems that it should be relatively easy to meet the requirements of standing, but other cases already decided and based on the same fact pattern, are rejected. Go figger.
They will not be held to account and they have set up the stage in their favor. Next month will be interesting to watch.
Perhaps. But his term ends at a definite date - when a Republican president is sworn in. Not so with a SCJ. They are in position for life, generally, and can only be removed by impeachment. Think Wise Latina and her like.
That may well be true. But the effect was as if Mitch was holding it up for the right reasons. I'll take that.
Why involve the courts when you have McConnell the Chinese traitor pulling campaign cash from Arizona Senate Race and Don Bolduc in New Hampshire.
Don’t know how you win folks when there are traitorss in the White House,The Justice Dept, the FBI,The Courts.
I guess you dont win
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.