I have only seen the concept of standing used to dismiss cases brought forward by those injured by the government or powerful corporations. It's basically a blanket excuse the court can selectively invoke when they don't want someone to win a case.
A judge will pocket their bribe then interpret the "injury" you've suffered out of existence and throw out your case.
Then lets really pack the courts. We can afford hundreds of billions of dollars to fund our safety, we can surly put some money into justice to ensure ever case gets seen by a judge. This is also a safety mechanism, so you can check a judges ruling for bias later.
When a contract is breached, at that moment it is null and void. Now, we have some niceties arranged around that, in the form of Notices of Breach, and Notice of Intent to Breach and so on, but at the end of the day, a breached contract is a null contract.
The Constitution is a contract between the States that sets out how they will arrange their affairs. Georgia et al have breached. Texas taking a case to the Supreme Court regarding this was essentially their "Notice of Breach", and the fact that there are now articles being prepared in Texas for secession should tell you how they feel about their case getting tossed.
Perhaps I misunderstood the arrangement? I agree with all that you said there. My understanding was that Texas was suing with the intent to receive restitution in the form of "the supposed results of this election shall be reviewed and changed if necessary" (possibly "in addition to" other restitution). In the specific case of the results of the election, the court could not take that case because the results of the election were not decided, and therefore damage was not done due to the results.
I know their major focus was on the breach of contract (which was a good and true focus). My thought as I was reading up on the result was that, essentially, they asked for too much at once / their requested restitution was not merited or could not be granted at the time.
I'll make a note to review it all again with your statements in mind, especially since Texas's secession stuff, in light of the expertise of the involved lawfolk, does support the idea that the ruling was malicious.
I have only seen the concept of standing used to dismiss cases brought forward by those injured by the government or powerful corporations. It's basically a blanket excuse the court can selectively invoke when they don't want someone to win a case.
A judge will pocket their bribe then interpret the "injury" you've suffered out of existence and throw out your case.
Then lets really pack the courts. We can afford hundreds of billions of dollars to fund our safety, we can surly put some money into justice to ensure ever case gets seen by a judge. This is also a safety mechanism, so you can check a judges ruling for bias later.
e really need a list somewhere of the changes we need to make to the system, mainly to enforce the law.
Like maybe it is a good idea to copy the federal system for the state Governor. and have the counties each have a senator. Or maybe not.
Precedent is another bullshit thing that liberals gave us.
Precedent is poison. So you have been making unconstitutional rulings since the 1800's, and we are stuck with them because "muh precedent?" BS.
"No, you can't have that constitutional right! We already successfully bribed this other judge to throw it out!"
Our masters must tell us what to do.and think
Absolutely!!
They absolutely did.
We should take that argument to the Supreme Court ... oh .... wait ...
Isn’t it obvious. We need a supremer court.
Turtles, all the way down.
Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfbd/14305d0a07a25975a0960c3f297eddd42367.pdf
The government could pass a law giving them the right to kill you, then say you have no standing of the law until they kill you. That's standing.
Lies don’t matter to corrupt judges.
No, you can't sue when there's no damage. You can't.
If you have not, in the past, suffered damages, then you have no right to demand restitution.
When a contract is breached, at that moment it is null and void. Now, we have some niceties arranged around that, in the form of Notices of Breach, and Notice of Intent to Breach and so on, but at the end of the day, a breached contract is a null contract.
The Constitution is a contract between the States that sets out how they will arrange their affairs. Georgia et al have breached. Texas taking a case to the Supreme Court regarding this was essentially their "Notice of Breach", and the fact that there are now articles being prepared in Texas for secession should tell you how they feel about their case getting tossed.
Perhaps I misunderstood the arrangement? I agree with all that you said there. My understanding was that Texas was suing with the intent to receive restitution in the form of "the supposed results of this election shall be reviewed and changed if necessary" (possibly "in addition to" other restitution). In the specific case of the results of the election, the court could not take that case because the results of the election were not decided, and therefore damage was not done due to the results.
I know their major focus was on the breach of contract (which was a good and true focus). My thought as I was reading up on the result was that, essentially, they asked for too much at once / their requested restitution was not merited or could not be granted at the time.
I'll make a note to review it all again with your statements in mind, especially since Texas's secession stuff, in light of the expertise of the involved lawfolk, does support the idea that the ruling was malicious.
The gist of the matter is that the breach is the damage.
Not whatever flows downstream from it.
In other words, the moment that Georgia et al conducted elections with rules that contravened the Constitution, Texas was damaged.