In short, they are saying the plaintiff is not presenting a case that belongs in the court. It’s a b.s. argument, but a typical go-to for the defendant in a preliminary hearing as an attempt to dismiss. You have to argue something.
If a plaintiff can get ruled as not having standing, it's an easy-out to dismiss the suit without a trial. An appeal would have to then show how there was legal standing but the lower court ignored it, or misinterpreted the law.
My understanding is that defense is arguing that Trump's team goofed and the fraud argument isn't worth having because it's obvious by looking at the law.
What does that mean?
In short, they are saying the plaintiff is not presenting a case that belongs in the court. It’s a b.s. argument, but a typical go-to for the defendant in a preliminary hearing as an attempt to dismiss. You have to argue something.
For some reason I'm imagining Ozzy Man just saying "Yeah, Nah m8, I don't like it."
Judge:"What?"
OM: "The argument. I don't like it"
If a plaintiff can get ruled as not having standing, it's an easy-out to dismiss the suit without a trial. An appeal would have to then show how there was legal standing but the lower court ignored it, or misinterpreted the law.
My understanding is that defense is arguing that Trump's team goofed and the fraud argument isn't worth having because it's obvious by looking at the law.
Care to elaborate? Not saying you're wrong, just admitting my ignorance.