I know we still have multiple options, and this scotus rejection was based on lack of standing. Based on what Rudy said, it seems like they will be going with the initial plan of multiple lawsuits in states by appealing to higher courts or whatsoever. But man, each time it gets harder and harder. Honestly, I can’t even go on Twitter because it is fucking stupid.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Skip to the end for the good news. Remember that a court, any court, is a court of LAW, Not primarily a court of Justice. Justice flows from the application of fair and just legal tenets. In this case the SCOTUS has applied the law and determined that the Texas application (220155) cannot be accepted, on a point of law. That being the legal standing of Texas to bring the application, NOT THE MERIT OF THE APPLICATIONS CONTENT. Justices Alito and Thomas confirmed this via their limit comments.
Right now there are LegalPedes working feverishly to prepare a submission where the question of 'standing' is resolved. This is NOT over by a long chalk. Hold the line Pedes,
Freedom, Liberty, Truth and Justice will not perish from this land on our watch.
** Arizona is filing the same application minus the reliance on directly approaching SCOTUS per Article III Sect 2 of the Constitution.
We will not let the freedom get taken away from us! Amen
Hey, I hope you know this - been trying to get an answer.
When a justice is reviewing for standing and merit, do they look at both at the same time, or one before the other?
Is there a standard/precedent/law for proving first standard or merit?
At the end of the day I'm curious about whether or not we passed the merit due diligence with this and all we need to do is prove standing by making GEOTUS the plaintiff.