I think, if I am understanding page 22 correctly is that the judge's argument is that when it comes to suing strictly over violation of State law, the only party this judge thinks would have standing would be members of the State's General Assembly.
I do not however understand the whole bit about how they lack injury, given that their votes are being potentially cancelled out by illegal votes.
The judge basically repeated what all the other judges said - "you have no standing"
but than took the unusual step of venturing past that and added "but if even if you did you would still lose because what you ask violates precedent"
The case made the round trip in 3 hours from being accepted to court to being thrown out.
Thread where i got my info
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1327310773467701248
I think, if I am understanding page 22 correctly is that the judge's argument is that when it comes to suing strictly over violation of State law, the only party this judge thinks would have standing would be members of the State's General Assembly.
I do not however understand the whole bit about how they lack injury, given that their votes are being potentially cancelled out by illegal votes.
That actually makes me glad to hear; Trump has defied all precedent and broken all the rules.
Prepare for him to do it again!!!
FOUR. MORE. YEARS!!!