Posted on 09/06/2024 11:44:57 AM PDT by Gort_Klaatu
A while back a fellow Freeper was talking about the refusal by judges to look at possible evidence of cheating in the 2020 election. They did not use the term “No Standing” or the term “Hearsay”. It was a legal phrase I had never heard before but it had to deal with a judge refusing to look into the evidence even when it was possibly valid. Can anyone help me with this? Thank you for your help.
Fellow Freeper.
Laches?
Was it “Laches”?
Were the claims supposed to happen before the “Steal” happened?
Probably laches, due to the possible consequences involved.
Hmmm…. Possibly
snoozy loozy
Laches basically means “too late”, for example trying to sue over election results after they have been certified, or trying to sue somebody after all the witnesses have died and there are no pre-death declarations or affidavits.
In the case of suing over an election result, assuming standing exists, the first thing the suing party must do, is apply for an injunction to stop the certification from happening during the course of the suit.
Trying to challenge after the election, they said "Laches", meaning you waited too long to challenge.
I wish to take this opportunity to once again inform everyone of how greatly I regard our legal system, and especially Judges, with contempt.
I find them disgusting, and I would welcome seeing the pompous arrogant bastards dragged off their court thrones and beaten in the streets.
I hate their stupid illogic, their unfairness, and their arrogance.
Our court system is literally a leftover of Monarchism in our Republican system of governance.
We have these Magistrates of the Crown, holding "Court", wearing Robes, sitting on a throne (bench), wielding a scepter, (gavel), and requiring people to come before them and "plead".
They are literally stand-ins for the King.
Should have tossed out this nonsense in 1776.
I can never understand why “laches” applied when we were like mere WEEKS into these fraud issues.
What do they have, a 24-hour notice requirement?
To have “standing”, you generally must be the aggrieved party.
For example, if some guy in a Dodge Ram runs a stop sign and hits a car your are in and hurts you, you have standing, because you were hurt.
Whoever owns the car you were in has standing.
If he killed you, your estate has standing. Your wife has standing for lost consortium, as do your kids.
Does the guy across the street who saw it all, was horrified, but was never in danger have standing? No, not unless he was in the “zone of danger”.
With things like voter fraud, it becomes hard to find someone who has standing because just being a member of the general population is more like being the guy across the street.
It would take a candidate who was cheated to have standing.
Or perhaps the state whose election process was corrupted.
Laches applied when some repubs tried to sue states for changing the mail in voting rules. I.e., the exec branch made voting rule changes, but that’s reserved for congress.
Stupid repubs did nothing until after the election. Too late to whine.
What would you suggest to replace it?
“Moot”? Basically meaning, it’s TOO LATE to change anything
According to my court guru Zen Master (who supports this), “Standing” is a long-established legal tradition that only people who have a direct harm from a law have a right to redress. Courts do NOT do hypothetical cases.
That said, I responded that I, as a citizen of the US (14th Amend), NOT a citizen of AZ, have a stake in EVERY federal election and should be able to bring a suit.
-PJ
How about lowering the throne down to the same level as the citizen? Are we not all supposed to be equal in this country?
How about requiring rational thinking instead of quasi-logical arguments and an obsession with "precedent"?
Maybe a professional Jury?
Lot of potential improvements could be made.
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.