Posted on 12/05/2022 2:07:57 PM PST by JSM_Liberty
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case brought against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook after the 2020 election by a group of voters who claimed the companies illegally “influenced or interfered with” the contest.
Lower courts had previously rejected the case, ruling that the eight voters lacked the procedural threshold – known as standing – needed to bring the suit against parties including the Center for Tech and Civic Life, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.
“The court’s refusal to take up this case is no surprise; the lower courts threw it out because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, and, even if they did, their claims are frivolous,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“The fact that no justice even asked Dominion or the other defendants to respond to the petition says everything that needs to be said about how seriously they took this appeal – which is to say, not at all,” Vladeck added.
...
The voters claimed that the company, along with the other named parties, “engaged in concerted action to interfere with the 2020 presidential election through a coordinated effort to, among other things, change voting laws without legislative approval, use unreliable voting machines, alter votes through an illegitimate adjudication process” and “privately fund only certain municipalities and counties.”
A federal judge in Colorado dismissed the case last year, saying the group of voters “allege no particularized injury traceable to the conduct of Defendants, other than their general interest in seeing elections conducted fairly and their votes fairly counted.”
“When the alleged injury is undifferentiated and common to all members of the public or a large group, courts routinely dismiss such cases as ‘generalized grievances’ that cannot support standing,”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Candidates always have standing to sue, and could have raised those same arguments.
So if those who cast legal ballots don’t have standing in a case where their ballots may have been invalidated and they have been disenfranchised, who does?
We’ve long passed the point that not only can one side commit all kinds of election law violations, they can do so with absolute impunity. They only have to keep up the charades until the elections are certified, then all the challenges become moot, along with the “standing” of any of the challengers . . .
“courts routinely dismiss such cases as ‘generalized grievances’ that cannot support standing”
IOW there is never a case where there is standing
Either every single voter in the country files or nothing.
So it’s always nothing.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it will not here cases with “generalized grievances.” Therefore, no Article III standing. Plain and simple.
Should have fought the steal of 2020. Can’t get away from that. It keeps coming back to haunt.
What Federal Constitutional issue is present here for SCOTUS to decide?
Candidates HAVE sued in the past and been rejected for lack of standing. I have seen this happen repeatedly, going back to the 1990s.
Only for now.
The last box.
…….again!
Yep the whole crew is shady
THIS is the main reason Vote Fraud will remain a clear and present danger to free elections. When given the job of clarifying what vote counting system is working and what is not, the Supreme Court, highest court in the land, can’t even be bothered to examine the topic. I don’t know if that decision was unanimous or what?
Why, it’s almost as though the SCOTUS did not wish to change the status quo, or to ‘rock the boat’.
**Do certain Justices gain a personal advantage by allowing the helter-skelter nature of Dem Vote Bundling to continue?
Which Supreme Court Justices might that be?
Inquiring minds want to know.
>>What’s left?<<
When the soap box fails, the ballot box fails, and the jury box also fails, there’s only one box left.
make sure to bring enough rope for 7 of the SCOTUS members
Being a Certified Voter means absolutely Nothing according to the Idiots sitting on the Supreme Court.
Apparently, the Voting machines count for more.
“Candidates HAVE sued in the past and been rejected for lack of standing. I have seen this happen repeatedly, going back to the 1990s.”
Most, if not all states, have laws that give candidates the legal standing and right to challenge the results of their election vote. The time to commence these lawsuits is usually short and governed by an expedited procedure. Many cases are thrown out not because of standing, but because they are untimely.
Also, for claims of election fraud, the unsuccessful candidate would have to allege the fraud with specificity in the complaint, including damages. General allegations are insufficient, and pleading damages is problematic because the unsuccessful candidate has to allege that the fraud changed the outcome of the election.
As for the standing of the “voters” in this particular case, any 2nd year law student should know that voters generally lack standing to sue unless they can allege in detail that they were illegally deprived of their right to vote or their specific vote was wrongfully disregarded or altered. General allegations of voter fraud are insufficient.
Soap Box,
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box
Arguably, the government is in full censorship mode, the votes are obvious frauds with harvesting stuffing, and refusing the people access to the courts....
Eventually it will come to ammo box or slavery under this authoritarian DC regime. And that will still be tragic because even regaining the stolen government by force still leaves almost half the country as rabid foaming at the mouth communists, trannies, women with green hair etc.
The only way to rule then is with more authoritarianism.
Either way, I think freedom is gonna be fairly scarce for a long time.
You don’t have a clue as to how the SCOTUS works and the parameters for accepting or rejecting appeals.
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.