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 ...
He may not, even, either. However, he could show more personal, and direct harm to him, than Texas could to Texas. He could also better identify what was was already lost to him, which are the votes in his name, not being counted correctly, which Texas wasn’t involved in. The issue for him personally is he probably can’t actually enjoin a state to state complaint as a person. As I said, I am not a lawyer and think this is a horrible decision that they could have easily and rightfully agreed to at least hear. Just giving my understanding of how lawyers might look at it.
So President Trump would be the only one with standing?
"We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public atlarge-does not state an Article III case or controversy" source
Maybe at the lower court, but not at SCOTUS. From what I understand SCOTUS is an appellate court and there are very few possible cases that are original jurisdiction (meaning that they start directly at SCOTUS). State v state is one of them. So Texas vs PA et al had to be a state v state complaint in order to go directly to SCOTUS. After it was put on the docket, then Trump could request to join. If he was a party at the start, then it would not have even been considered. That is why when the denied the request for leave to file, there was essentially no case (bill of complaint) for Trump to be a granted the right to be a party to. His request became moot.
Thanks for the answer
bookmark
Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law
FYI: the entire doctrine of “standing” was invented by courts this last century as a way to play preferential Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of cases they don’t want responsibility for.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfbd/14305d0a07a25975a0960c3f297eddd42367.pdf
10:46 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337604758576615425
Sorry... they are wrong. Disputes between states brought directly to SCOTUS are given standing automatically. The SCOTUS cannot deny the dispute and must hear the case on it’s merits.
The 4 vote SCOTUS rule is procedural doctrine. It does not have relevance in this situation.
The states have a right of redress before SCOTUS for the simple fact they are participating member sovereigns joined by contract of voluntary act... and need not prove standing in the pursuit of constitutional adjudication in the eyes of SCOTUS where the issue is national in its argument. SCOTUS has no authority to deny action to judge.
“Maybe it would be easier if some person with legal knowledge could tell us who actually HAS standing in the case of election fraud. No one?
So, if someone shoots and kills someone else, can the defense claim that the prosecution has no standing because they were not impacted, and the victim is dead?”
That’s basically what these courts have all said.
I’m on my phone and can’t read the pdf link - is it a particular court case?
But either way, how is that a Constitutional argument? If a law is bad but it hurts everyone the same, no one can argue against it? Every citizen subject to a particular law, whether it directly affects them or not, should have standing to challenge the legality of said law. The fact that the law applies to you should be all it takes. And every law should apply to everyone equally, correct?
I would think though that Texas is damaged as they were denied the President they voted for, because of the illegal actions in another state.
Well, two our seven thought the case had merit, so there is some validity to that point, just not enough.
Kicked it over the cliff?
That is an honest assessment.
LOL. And that is a blunt assessment!
That is the obvious logical conclusion. The only remaining question is, to what extremes people will go to in order to justify their desired result.
This is yet to play out, completely, however. More votes, such as electoral votes, haven’t even been counted. And maybe after more things happen, including the election finally being decided, and more fraud being uncovered, then more accurate lists of actual damages and to whom can be determined.
Bottom line it was still a total cop out by he SCOTUS. They lost all respect from many, who once saw them as heroes. There may be a chance for them yet, but after this I won’t put my faith for justice in them again.
In order to have standing, you have to show direct injury.
IF a law infringes on a Hindu’s religious freedom, Christians have no standing to sue, because their injury is not direct. Sure, an argument can be made that as a consequence of this law, Christians are denied the kind of government they are guaranteed under the First Amendment. But that injury is too remote to give them standing. Otherwise, anyone can have standing in Federal court because a law or an executive act denies him the kind of government they wanted.
My explanation is a bit of oversimplification, but it encapsulates a HUGE body of law and precedent. The TX lawsuit was frivolous on its face.
Actually, the two conservative judges did NOT say that TX had standing. My interpretation of the cryptic two-sentence opinion is this:
Since the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit between two states, when one state asks to submit a complaint against another state, SCOTUS must grant that request. And “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief.”
In other words, they would have let TX file a complaint but they would have have ordered the defendant states to reverse their election results.
I have said elsewhere, extensively, that this was a totally frivolous lawsuit, and it was filed just to appease and placate us, and everyone who piled onto this lawsuit was doing it just for show and to deceive us.
The ultimate Friday Night News Dump: The Constitution is repealed; America is no longer a democratic republic.
"Standing" is a doctrine without much rigor. Judges find standing when they want to take a case, and don't find it when they want to bury a case.
Update: Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani on Newsmax (of course) at 8pm.
JennaEllisEsqMayor @RudyGiuliani and I will join @stinchfield1776 on @newsmax at 8pm ET.
The Supreme Court decided to bury the Texas lawsuit.
The high court refused to take up the lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that took aim at the election results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin."Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot," the court said in an unsigned order.
...
But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court does "not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."
Yes, that's true: The Court has no discretion to not take the case. The Constitution says they must take it.
But whatever, I guess the Constitution is a tax now or something.
Deep State gotta Deep State.
Yes, we know, brand new freeper. You’ve spent your every breath trying to discourage us, and insult our intelligence. Obviously, it’s not working, as you’ve been exposed as a Judas, at best.
Either support those who are fighting the fight, or come up with some new creative angles to start new fronts. Simply sitting back and backstabbing everyone, while telling us how smart you supposedly are, in your apparent plan to surrender, is not of righteous intent.
You should change your handle to ME as the first word, not our heavenly Father.
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.