SCOTUS; WTH Hell "Standing"?

Vanity ^ | December 11, 2020 | myself

[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?

[CodeToad]

“Standing” is a court’s way of tell you to F’ off.

[AFB-XYZ]

Heck, I really AM a numbskull for forgetting that. Thanks for the info!

[AFB-XYZ]

IIRC, Pres. Trump requested to “intervene”; i.e., to join the case as a Plaintiff. Unfortunately, SCOTUS denied his application.

[tarpit]

Trump filed a motion requesting to join the Bill of Compliant as an injured party. Since the request for leave to file the Bill of Compliant was denied, the president’s request is considered moot as their is no bill of complaint to possibly join.

[AFB-XYZ]

Not that it matters at this point, but we have Chambers (House of Representatives and the Senate). It’s the limeys who have two Houses (House of Commons and House of Lords).

But, like I said, it may all be moot now. Even though I know there are other cases in process, it did seem, with something like 20 states signing on to amicus briefs in support of Texas, to be the strongest case.

[The Antiyuppie]

“Standing” is a court’s way of tell you to F’ off.

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?

[Bellagio]

Pure BS by whomever fed you those ‘standing’ conditions because this is not an example of a dispute brought by an individual or injured party against a state of which the outcome is confined to the states jurisdiction.

NO... It is a grievance, a dispute BETWEEN states which stands as a NATIONAL issue, and indeed falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction with UNASSAILABLE STANDING!

SCOTUS has not the authority to turn down lawsuits between states!

[eyedigress]

SCOTUS ruled any state can have any law, rule, decree or flat out fraud they want.

[TexasGurl24]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/555/

[Irish Eyes]

So who does have standing??

[Golden Eagle]

My non lawyer, but simple, and understood to be correct understanding is, you mainly have to show 2 things. First that you were affected. Second that the damages are real, and specifically quantifiable.

I really hate this decision, but an argument could be made that it’s too hard to identify exactly how Texas would be damaged by the actions of these other states, because the electors haven’t even voted yet, and if they do elect Biden, how can Texas see into the future for how that may damage them, then.

Courts are more for what has already happened, than what might happen. Like I said, I hate the decision, and think laws were broken and it should be corrected, but I am not a lawyer, just know it’s crazy how they think sometimes.

Trump joining the lawsuit should have helped the standing issue, since he would be personally harmed. They probably didn’t see his joining as actually legal though, since he is not a state.

[tarpit]

You could read any of the 4 briefs in opposition where the Attorney Generals spell out exactly what must be satisfied and how Texas did not adequately address. Again, from the very beginning, many law professors and legal pundits kepts saying there were too many defects in the complaint and the case would be tossed on lack of standing. SCOTUS basically accepted the case (to keep the “cannot turn down”) and immediately tossed it on lack of standing.

[tarpit]

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
law.cornell.edu

[wgmalabama]

I guess then the rest of the country has no standing if 16 states leave.

[NetAddicted]

I’m assuming PDJT has plans. In Georgia, heard he’s really
good at perceiving the future. He’s got plans.

[Stanwood_Dave]

This reply, is not meant to flame anyone. It is meant to show that SCOTUS decision, is shall we say leave's a lot to be desired.

How many hundred's of time's have we heard, via the different courts (local county, state, up to the SCOTUS,) "Compelling Government Interest."

So, I'm guessing there is no "Compelling Government Interest."

I'm not a schooled lawyer, but do have 10 (Ten) years civil litigation experience (mostly at the appellate level, Washington state Court of Appeals & Washington state Supreme Court.)

The lawsuits were based around the forming of New Counties. So, it would be proper to say it was all political. Having learned, first hand, how corrupt the legal establishment is. Define corrupt, you say, issuing a ruling, on subject matter that was never "JOINED, ARGUED, or BRIEFTED," but hey we now have "Stare Decisis" {Precedent.} Personally I now refer to "Stare Decisis" as Stare @ the human excrement on the wall.

And in case your wondering, yes that Stare @ the human excrement on the wall, thank you SCOTUS, does STINK to HIGH HEAVEN!

[tallyhoe]

Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh came from McConnell’s list of approved judges, i.e. the ones that he could push through the worthless Senate. So, those three are flawed, no doubt, as they have just proven.

Pack the court!

[Svartalfiar]

One simple example would be that if your neighbor were to build a doghouse on your property and you objected, you would have standing to sue him.

If your neighbor builds his doghouse on somebody else’s property in another state, that person has standing to sue your neighbor if that person objects - but you have no standing or legal recourse to sue the neighbor.

In this case, it's like your right neighbor put his doghouse in your left neighbor's yard, and now the dog pees all over your gardenias on his way back and forth. But, you still have no standing, just a lovely old pee smell every time you check your mail.

[Svartalfiar]

From the very beginning many legal scholars and advisor said the case would be tossed for lack of standing because what Texas was saying is more of a generalized grievance instead of a specific injury unique to Texas.

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.

So, If I go out and rob several banks, none of them can sue me for it because there's several victims?

How is every single class action lawsuit not dismissed for your general grievance lack of standing?

[Svartalfiar]

I really hate this decision, but an argument could be made that it’s too hard to identify exactly how Texas would be damaged by the actions of these other states, because the electors haven’t even voted yet, and if they do elect Biden, how can Texas see into the future for how that may damage them, then.

Courts are more for what has already happened, than what might happen. Like I said, I hate the decision, and think laws were broken and it should be corrected, but I am not a lawyer, just know it’s crazy how they think sometimes.

Trump joining the lawsuit should have helped the standing is

But how would Trump have standing? By your own definitions, the electors haven't voted yet, so Trump hasn't lost the election yet. How is Trump harmed by not being President? He makes more money running his business, than he does donating his Pres salary! Losing helps him! /s