Everyday Example For Understanding The Texas Lawsuit ('Audacious' Vanity)

Freerepublic.com ^ | December 9, 2020 | Texas AG and Hostage

[Hostage]

Quote: In his complaint, Paxton argued that voters in his state were affected by the unconstitutional voting procedures in the other states because in “the shared enterprise of the entire nation electing the president and vice president, equal protection violations in one state can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in states that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.” And he is absolutely correct. When one or more states violates the U.S. Constitution during a presidential election, that harms everyone that voted, because voters in every state are involved in electing the president.

Here’s an everyday example: You go to a federal surplus auction. You want to bid on a piece of equipment. You have a competitor that can print all the dollars they want on the spot and the auctioneer will accept the counterfeit dollars but you must show real dollars. Why should you even bother to bid? Are you treated equally in the auction? No, you’re not treated the same.

So you take the auctioneer to court and sue them for treating you unequally, from some bidders they will accept counterfeit dollars but you’re not allowed to counterfeit because you have to obey the law.

So at this crooked auction, only crooks can win the bids and take the goods. Is the court going to allow that?

[Jane Long]

If you have a ping list, for your ‘Audacious Election Lawsuits Vanities’, please add me ;-)

And, thank you for posting these.

[Hostage]

My pleasure!

[Svartalfiar]

Thinking on this further, the President’s lawsuit to intervene (join) Texas, is critical as it goes to real injury and claims FRAUD.

Eh. Adding fraud arguments to this I think, takes away from the arguments as they're very subjective, and so far Trump's team has either forgotten to bring the evidence, or so incompetent they're unable to produce anything meaningful. Or the judges so far have just been that corrupt, but some of them have been Trump appointees, so I don't know how well that argument holds across the board. I think the case has a better overall chance of success by only working on the Constitutional issues, and letting the fraud go for a different court battle.

Trump intervening does help add the 'injury for standing', but I don't think that's really necessary.
Of course, injury should not be a requirement for standing in order to sue a gov't entity for a law or such that isn't legal; as a citizen to whom that law applies, you (should) automatically have standing.

[TianaHighrider]

Thank you for this.

[Hostage]

> “Trump’s team has either forgotten to bring the evidence, or so incompetent they’re unable to produce anything meaningful.”

Strong statement. Have ou read the President’s intervene complaint?