As not an Attorney, and furthest thing from it (PhD Stats), I feel like standing is a joke. I do not know as I said I am not an attorney, but to throw a case away like they did today when America is split 50/50 and none of the lower courts want to touch any of the cases brought, I feel like it does a great disservice to our country. Every case thus far has been dismissed due to standing. Ohh you sued before the election... No damages, dismissed standing... Ohh you sued after? nope shoulda brought this up before the election, dismissed standing.
Once again, I don't know but I feel like SCOTUS should have heard it as it involved 4 states acting unconstitutionally that affected an election for federal office.
Exactly. Judges are using the technicalities of law to avoid actually looking at the evidence and taking a tough stand, even thought the result of these dismissals is to deny the constitutional rights of the whole nation to free and fair elections.
It's maddening.
I know Trump and his team have other legal avenues left to pursue, but I'm feeling the ticking clock very acutely.
It's not even technicalities. It's just mental gymnastics and word salad to avoid the real rational and logical conclusion that should have been made here. Their argument puts enough of a spin on things that they can fool the "average" person who won't think twice - but upon scrutiny it is easily torn to shreds.
When states joined the union they agreed that elections of their common federal government would be subject to certain common rules, checks, and balances. SCOTUS basically said the way one state runs their elections is not the business of any other state, EVEN WHEN it's in violation of this agreement.
It is also a question of Original Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction.
TX seeking original jurisdiction would have allowed SCOTUS to review evidence. Appellate jurisdiction, which would be where Trump's cases would end up, won't.
The core issue is two fold. One is the election fraud and the evidence therein and the second is violations of the constitution via constitutional powers being usurped by branches of the state governments.
So far, none of those issues have been actually reviewed and decided on.
That's exactly right. The SC does not want to deal with the personal and political blowback of taking a stand, so they've refused to hear the case on a technicality.
Fundamentally, what this does is, it enshrines "one rule for me, one rule for thee" as a legal principle. It says that entire states can shred the Constitution and other states can't do anything about it. So what does the Constitution mean now? Practically, it means nothing.
One thought that occurs to me, it opens up a huge can of worms for liberals because what's to stop red states from rejecting all gun control laws, or banning illegal immigrants, or confiscating all properties of big tech companies, or banning the FBI from their borders on the grounds that the FBI is a traitor organization? Well nothing, pretty much, from what I can see. If lawlessness is the left's game plan now, well, let's see if TWO can play.
They don't dismiss cases because they don't want to "look at the evidence," they dismiss cases because they follow the law and the law is technical. If you don't have standing, to hear your case would be illegal.
Number one: SCOTUS should have heard this case because it involves the most sacred right as an American citizen: the right to vote. And to expect that vote to be counted in a fair and ethical manner. That you are entitled to one vote, and only one vote, and one that shouldn’t be stolen from you. AND that the ballot you cast is counted for the person you voted for. Number two: To hear the election fraud and allow Trump to take office in 2021. As much as we want Trump in office, number one is the most important reason and SCOTUS should have stepped up to the plate
The lawsuit had so much merit, it is crazy to me they wouldn't hear it based on that alone. Seems like standing was solved by adding Trump and the electors clause... I just don't get it
Funny... the situation they describe involves outrage after 20k vote lead for Trump evaporates the next day. Close, they only missed the actual total by 680k.
To be fair, this was written before corona. This goes to show what an evil genius move it was to keep the pandemic scare alive for an extra 40 weeks after, "two-weeks to flatten the curve."
So standing is a weapon to use to .... deny a case the judge/panel doesn't want to take, or widened to accept a case they want to take (ie when the claimant is one they "favor")
https://t.co/zA3P7lOi7S?amp=1
As not an Attorney, and furthest thing from it (PhD Stats), I feel like standing is a joke. I do not know as I said I am not an attorney, but to throw a case away like they did today when America is split 50/50 and none of the lower courts want to touch any of the cases brought, I feel like it does a great disservice to our country. Every case thus far has been dismissed due to standing. Ohh you sued before the election... No damages, dismissed standing... Ohh you sued after? nope shoulda brought this up before the election, dismissed standing.
Once again, I don't know but I feel like SCOTUS should have heard it as it involved 4 states acting unconstitutionally that affected an election for federal office.
That's my take.
Exactly. Judges are using the technicalities of law to avoid actually looking at the evidence and taking a tough stand, even thought the result of these dismissals is to deny the constitutional rights of the whole nation to free and fair elections.
It's maddening.
I know Trump and his team have other legal avenues left to pursue, but I'm feeling the ticking clock very acutely.
It's not even technicalities. It's just mental gymnastics and word salad to avoid the real rational and logical conclusion that should have been made here. Their argument puts enough of a spin on things that they can fool the "average" person who won't think twice - but upon scrutiny it is easily torn to shreds.
When states joined the union they agreed that elections of their common federal government would be subject to certain common rules, checks, and balances. SCOTUS basically said the way one state runs their elections is not the business of any other state, EVEN WHEN it's in violation of this agreement.
It's completely absurd.
It is also a question of Original Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction.
TX seeking original jurisdiction would have allowed SCOTUS to review evidence. Appellate jurisdiction, which would be where Trump's cases would end up, won't.
The core issue is two fold. One is the election fraud and the evidence therein and the second is violations of the constitution via constitutional powers being usurped by branches of the state governments.
So far, none of those issues have been actually reviewed and decided on.
That's exactly right. The SC does not want to deal with the personal and political blowback of taking a stand, so they've refused to hear the case on a technicality.
Fundamentally, what this does is, it enshrines "one rule for me, one rule for thee" as a legal principle. It says that entire states can shred the Constitution and other states can't do anything about it. So what does the Constitution mean now? Practically, it means nothing.
One thought that occurs to me, it opens up a huge can of worms for liberals because what's to stop red states from rejecting all gun control laws, or banning illegal immigrants, or confiscating all properties of big tech companies, or banning the FBI from their borders on the grounds that the FBI is a traitor organization? Well nothing, pretty much, from what I can see. If lawlessness is the left's game plan now, well, let's see if TWO can play.
They don't dismiss cases because they don't want to "look at the evidence," they dismiss cases because they follow the law and the law is technical. If you don't have standing, to hear your case would be illegal.
Number one: SCOTUS should have heard this case because it involves the most sacred right as an American citizen: the right to vote. And to expect that vote to be counted in a fair and ethical manner. That you are entitled to one vote, and only one vote, and one that shouldn’t be stolen from you. AND that the ballot you cast is counted for the person you voted for. Number two: To hear the election fraud and allow Trump to take office in 2021. As much as we want Trump in office, number one is the most important reason and SCOTUS should have stepped up to the plate
The right to choose your representatives.
Hope they did not forget these people are NOT our leaders; they are our employees.
So we the people have no voice?
Them's fightin' words.
What time do the hangings start?
Texas wasn't a voter in any of the states it sued.
The lawsuit had so much merit, it is crazy to me they wouldn't hear it based on that alone. Seems like standing was solved by adding Trump and the electors clause... I just don't get it
As not an attorney, have an upvote.
Thanks fren!!
That is no light read. Thanks for the link.
want a better read? check this out
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj
it is happening
Funny... the situation they describe involves outrage after 20k vote lead for Trump evaporates the next day. Close, they only missed the actual total by 680k.
To be fair, this was written before corona. This goes to show what an evil genius move it was to keep the pandemic scare alive for an extra 40 weeks after, "two-weeks to flatten the curve."
Time travelers!!!!!
Awesome, good write up.
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2719&context=luclj
This is better even lol
Great link!
So standing is a weapon to use to .... deny a case the judge/panel doesn't want to take, or widened to accept a case they want to take (ie when the claimant is one they "favor")