Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lurking Libertarian

Yeah, courts and politicians run the clock down and then complain that there’s no longer any time for a remedy.


111 posted on 12/05/2020 2:10:29 PM PST by fwdude (Pass up too many hills to die on, and you will eventually fall off the edge of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All

A link to the text of the opinion appears below, if anyone wants to read it. It is classified as a “published” opinion, which means it has value as precedent.

The narrow issue that was lost in trial court, and then again on appeal, will ALMOST CERTAINLY not be heard by SCOTUS, and if it is, it will be rejected.

The concept of “standing” is something that confuses many non-attorneys. Federal courts can only legislate actual cases or controversies. They cannot give advisory opinions. Otherwise, they would be legislating from the bench, which violates our Republican system of separation of powers.

In order to have a “case or controversy” you need (1) an actual dispute and (2) a litigant who is alleging a harm that (3) can be redressed by judicial intervention.

An individual voter cannot challenge an election result unless he alleges that he was illegally prevented from voting or his legal vote was not counted.

Also, the dispute has to be live. If a dispute has been resolved or rendered moot, the judges will be legislating from the bench.

I must have read well over a dozen opinions (trial court and appellate court, Federal and state courts) and I now believe this whole thing was GROSSLY mis-managed.

You do not wait until AFTER the election to challenge the procedures.

Political pressure should have been put upon state legislators to enact election security.

McConnell refused to even DEBATE uniform Federalized election security.

BEFORE the election, carefully drafted lawsuits should have obtained orders specifying crystal clear election security protocols.

The Constitution grants states broad right to regulate elections. So long as Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 are followed, states run the show. If a state allows 17 year old incarcerated felons to vote, it would be within its rights.

It may be time for a Constitutional Amendment to allow Congress to enforce uniform Federalized election security.

The text of the 11th Circuit opinion can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202014418.pdf


113 posted on 12/05/2020 2:29:32 PM PST by God_Country_Trump_Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson