Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
Attorney here, this isn't the case. Standing is not explicitly in the constitution - it wasn't formed as a doctrine until the 1920s or so. We need to stop treating standing as a proper constitutional doctrine.
Constitution vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in SCotUS for State v. State matters, but it doesn't address standing.
Standing is a bullshit excuse to not hear a case - it is loosely derived from the "case and controversy" requirement. If I recall correctly, the first use was to avoid a valid challenge to the ratification of the 19th amendment - basically, SCotUS didn't want to be seen as "taking the vote away from women" so they (I want to say Justice Brandeis) invented standing as an excuse not to hear the case.
As an attorney what are your thoughts on the current cases moving forward? Do you feel the currently dismissed cases were unfair, or within bounds of the law without bias?
You are correct that standing is an excuse not to hear a case. They can't humor every case from any litigant or the courts could be overwhelmed in frivolity.
"Constitution vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in SCotUS for State v. State matters."
Or to laymen: Standing
The alternative is potentially war between the states.
The only acceptable excuse is they would rather rule on the POTUS suits, as they are much less controversial. I also want them to shit on Robert's pedo face on live TV, but I'll be happy with the former.
You damn lawyers with your degrees, brains and shit anyway can i borrow a dollar LOL. Serious question how the hell do you keep up with all that shit especially when the laws keep changing?
If they brought the case via Hava ACT, it would have had standing. With the way texas filed, they could take the position of one state telling another state how to do their thing, even know its wrong.
The Courts are politics. Always have been. The only judges who even try to remain unbiased are some conservative judges who don't like getting the judicial branch involved in political disputes
Just read the supreme Court of Wisconsin's SICK DISGUSTING BIASED ruling last week.... Called the president a king, his lawsuit was raaaaaaacist.... There's no place in the courts for politics, sadly, that's where we are.
They should have, but the only thing that could force them would be the court of public opinion. And td.win aside, the brainwashed public already accepted Joepedo as president.
Texas was claiming that the way other states enforce their election laws somehow hurt Texas's ability to cast its own electoral votes. This is not a strong argument, in my opinion as a non-attorney.
Texas's electoral votes were unchanged. Allowing states to sue each other because of how other states enforce their laws is a slippery slope, which could result in Texas being sued by other states for being too stringent about abortion, or who knows what.
The more directly hurt party, if there is election fraud, is a) the citizens of the state where the fraud occurs, because they are deprived of having a say in their government, and b) the political candidate who won the legal vote but lost the official vote due to rampant fraud.
P.S. I've been told that the SCOTUS routinely rejects 99% of cases they are sent, and they prefer to hear clean-cut cases rather than weak cases when choosing to take cases having to do with the same issue--in this case, 2020 election fraud...
They’re direct from the district courts (and not from district panels, either). Powell decided not to bother with the circuit courts because of time. Not sure if scotus has ever taken a case that skipped that step.
I agree! I was just commenting to my husband this morning that scotus might be trying to find the perfect case so that it is so locked down and airtight and that even the other side will have to believe that there was true fraud and that this election must be overturned. However, that being said, the illiterate low information voters, on both sides, probably won't be able to understand anything that their overlords at CNN and Facebook haven't told them.
If you expect the SCOTUS to not be hypocritical a SECOND time, I don't know what to tell you. Fool you once? Fine. Fool you twice in the matter of only a week or two? That's on you man.
This isn't going to be fixed by the corrupted court system. There are other ways.
Sidney Powell has proven herself incompetent bin these types of cases. I no more believe her or lin wood will get anywhere than I believe In flying monkeys
Lol... to the deep state the election is over. Mitch called it for them. They all have cover. There are no more legal or political options because Mitch made it clear he will support their treason in the senate in Jan 6th.
My prediction is that they will simply refuse to hear it. Docking means they received it, not that they will hear it. Although it’s possible they will collect all of these cases and turn them into one case if the right case ever gets there in time.
When the PA case made it to the SCOTUS docket, I thought to myself, "OK, there's a big chunk of the EC votes we need, but what's the plan for the rest?" I thought this because PA was the biggest clusterfuck of election clusterfucks the world has ever seen, with state issue after state issue and two major US constitutional issues that three sitting justices ruled on and two argued the damned case.
Then they refused to hear it, and I knew SCOTUS was no longer an option.
The Supremes tipped their hand in October when they voted 4-4 on whether Pennsylvania could accept ballots AFTER Election Day. PA clearly circumventing State Legislature to create this law. And ACB said she was too busy to cram for the case...
🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️BOOM BREAKING BOMBSHELL NOTHINGBURGER 🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️ GET THE FUCK IN THIS GODDAMMED THREAD TO COMMENT AND UPDOOT HOLY SHIT HAPPENING 🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️ FUCK YAH COOMING EVERYWHERE 🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️
So what if a court, or several, rules that there was widespread election fraud in Feb 2021? Are they expecting us to say ´well shucks, Biden cheated, but is now President and will stay President´? Even if they impeach and remove him, Kamala ran on the same fraudulent ticket. What legal option would be left to remedy this clusterfuck of an election? At that point I only see 4th box options, to be honest.
I'm not really surprised, but it was so strange to see the appeals to the SCOTUS to submit their amicus briefs on NORMAL PAPER rather than in the weird bound booklet size they usually use.
Tradition for tradition's sake, not because it is more efficient or has a productivity gain, just because that's the way it's always been done.
I was the FS chapter president at my law school 2004-2006. Attended many national FS events, including the national student symposium at Columbia Univ. in NYC in February 2006. The keynote speaker at that event was none other than neocon NeverTrumper John Bolton. Everyone fawned all over him. Hundreds of high profile government lawyers, GOPe politicians, and federal court judges were in attendance (and at the social events with law students that followed). The FS does a great job of getting the conservative message out and is the only safe place for conservative law students in a sea of liberal idiot law students and professors. Still, the idolatry they heaped on Bolton always left a bad taste in my mouth. FS recommended John Roberts. They are suspect.
Because the federalist society is the republican establishment. The skeptics here tried to say ACB was a piece of shit and every here was like no no shies good. She held up a piece of paper at her senate hearing.
Great they're docketed but without 10,000 armed pedes demonstrating that people are the government, the strength of America, nothing to stop them from wiping their ass with the constitution
Rumour has it the CCP has them on their hit-list as they have their addresses, So if they agree to take on the case for Trump, They'll just disappear all of a sudden.
SCOTUS will betray us again. I no longer have faith in them. Cocaine "Bitch" was the one that wanted the 3 of them nominated and we know he is a Swamp Dwelling Treasonous Cuck now. I hope Trump knew this but it's hard to say.
Okay, in the 1/1000000 chance that this doesn’t get slapped down, what is the actually remedy? I mean the best that can be done is decertification correct?
@LLinWood
In discussing @realDonaldTrump in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”
Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.
Big fucking deal. Will be dismissed by Friday. Wow...right again. Dismissed Thursday night. Damn I thought Powell was a charlatan trying to sell books, now I know she is.
She doesn't have the goods. She's shilling her book. If she did it would have been dumped. All the solid evidence was destroyed long ago and everything she has is weak evidence or balderdash. She's been taking us for a ride. I feel dumb for falling for it.
Let me predict the outcome....... Hmm no standing
No, I believe this one has standing since it was filed by POTUS. If SCOTUS wants to dismiss this lawsuit they will have to find a different reason.
I hope but scotus can dismiss wo reason
Are you sure about that? They don't have to give any reason to dismiss?
They dismissed Texas when the country was founded with the explicit instruction that states ALWAYS have standing in disputes with other states.
Attorney here, this isn't the case. Standing is not explicitly in the constitution - it wasn't formed as a doctrine until the 1920s or so. We need to stop treating standing as a proper constitutional doctrine.
Constitution vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in SCotUS for State v. State matters, but it doesn't address standing.
Standing is a bullshit excuse to not hear a case - it is loosely derived from the "case and controversy" requirement. If I recall correctly, the first use was to avoid a valid challenge to the ratification of the 19th amendment - basically, SCotUS didn't want to be seen as "taking the vote away from women" so they (I want to say Justice Brandeis) invented standing as an excuse not to hear the case.
Yeah they chickened out on the TX case, was absolutely obvious.
I saw plenty of people that made all sorts of mental gymnastics and tried to interpret their one pager. But they chickened out. That's the bottomline.
They will do so with the other cases unless some serious pressure is mounted upon them.
Except for Thomas and Alito, they are soft people that rather go along with a nice brainwash than confronting this ugly mess.
The only acceptable ruling in all this can only be to strike down Joe and send him back to hell. They have no intrest in taking all the heat for this.
How can a nation survive with a stupid populace, a subversive media, and elites who lack virtue? Very sad.
uPhilippElhaus To be fair, the Texas case came completely out of left field. There was never any guarantee the SC would hear it to begin with
SCOTUS are cowards https://thedonald.win/p/11R4lGFL77/moral-cowardice/c/
As an attorney what are your thoughts on the current cases moving forward? Do you feel the currently dismissed cases were unfair, or within bounds of the law without bias?
A distinction without a difference.
You are correct that standing is an excuse not to hear a case. They can't humor every case from any litigant or the courts could be overwhelmed in frivolity.
"Constitution vests original and exclusive jurisdiction in SCotUS for State v. State matters."
Or to laymen: Standing
The alternative is potentially war between the states.
The only acceptable excuse is they would rather rule on the POTUS suits, as they are much less controversial. I also want them to shit on Robert's pedo face on live TV, but I'll be happy with the former.
I have no problem with that. MOAB the DemoncRats in their strongholds.
You damn lawyers with your degrees, brains and shit anyway can i borrow a dollar LOL. Serious question how the hell do you keep up with all that shit especially when the laws keep changing?
Read... A lot
Read up on who you are recommending:
https://freedomoutpost.com/duck-duck-gos-far-left-political-donations-and-abuse-of-user-data-have-users-fuming/
http://techrights.org/2020/07/02/ddg-privacy-abuser-in-disguise/
They still lied about them not having standing.
I hope they do, let that be the enactment. If they do, we need to hold them accountable. Every. Single. One.
If they brought the case via Hava ACT, it would have had standing. With the way texas filed, they could take the position of one state telling another state how to do their thing, even know its wrong.
100% sure yes they can dismiss wo reason
We’ve watched them do it.
"Dismissed because Dispooted"
"Dismissed as moooooot"
Dissspooooooooooted!
Yes they will use latches or mootness.
The Courts are politics. Always have been. The only judges who even try to remain unbiased are some conservative judges who don't like getting the judicial branch involved in political disputes
Just read the supreme Court of Wisconsin's SICK DISGUSTING BIASED ruling last week.... Called the president a king, his lawsuit was raaaaaaacist.... There's no place in the courts for politics, sadly, that's where we are.
You can't appeal SCOTUS decisions. They can do whatever the fuck they want.
Yeah, but SCOTUS should have to at least give a reason why a lawsuit is dismissed.
They should have, but the only thing that could force them would be the court of public opinion. And td.win aside, the brainwashed public already accepted Joepedo as president.
It seems like it was the court of public opinion (or at least threat of public reaction) that led to the dismissal of the TX case in the first place.
Repost of a comment I just made elsewhere:
They’re direct from the district courts (and not from district panels, either). Powell decided not to bother with the circuit courts because of time. Not sure if scotus has ever taken a case that skipped that step.
I agree! I was just commenting to my husband this morning that scotus might be trying to find the perfect case so that it is so locked down and airtight and that even the other side will have to believe that there was true fraud and that this election must be overturned. However, that being said, the illiterate low information voters, on both sides, probably won't be able to understand anything that their overlords at CNN and Facebook haven't told them.
"Dismiss" requires a ruling. "Decline to accept" requires no justification.
Yeaaaa, but then we can revolt.
Don't worry, they're creative.
Laches, my boy. Invest in Laches.
This wasn't filed by POTUS.
Source? I may be wrong but I thought he was the plaintiff, I know Sidney filed the paperwork but isn't POTUS the plaintiff?
Sidney has nothing to do with anything regarding Trump's legal team or cases.
Read the case here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-815.html
Trump team threw Sidney under the bus. Said she was working on her own . She had absolutely nothing to do with them. Did you miss that??
bro they did not "throw her under the bus". they pardoned her client 3 days later which is why they had to make the clarification
... So they'll just find a different reason.
If you expect the SCOTUS to not be hypocritical a SECOND time, I don't know what to tell you. Fool you once? Fine. Fool you twice in the matter of only a week or two? That's on you man.
This isn't going to be fixed by the corrupted court system. There are other ways.
It was filed by Sidney but POTUS is the plaintiff, same as the other lawsuits filed in GA, PA, and AZ.
Sidney Powell has proven herself incompetent bin these types of cases. I no more believe her or lin wood will get anywhere than I believe In flying monkeys
POTUS also signed on as a Plaintiff in the Texas case.
Trump intervened in the Texas case
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlYYx4Dp/breaking-president-trump-has/
By now SCOTUS has installed a dartboard, where the central ring says "No standing" and the outer ring says "Laches".
Lol... to the deep state the election is over. Mitch called it for them. They all have cover. There are no more legal or political options because Mitch made it clear he will support their treason in the senate in Jan 6th.
My prediction is that they will simply refuse to hear it. Docking means they received it, not that they will hear it. Although it’s possible they will collect all of these cases and turn them into one case if the right case ever gets there in time.
When the PA case made it to the SCOTUS docket, I thought to myself, "OK, there's a big chunk of the EC votes we need, but what's the plan for the rest?" I thought this because PA was the biggest clusterfuck of election clusterfucks the world has ever seen, with state issue after state issue and two major US constitutional issues that three sitting justices ruled on and two argued the damned case.
Then they refused to hear it, and I knew SCOTUS was no longer an option.
The Supremes tipped their hand in October when they voted 4-4 on whether Pennsylvania could accept ballots AFTER Election Day. PA clearly circumventing State Legislature to create this law. And ACB said she was too busy to cram for the case...
We are dealing with the biggest bunch of Cucks.
she was weak on lockdown, of course she's weak on freedom.
Yes i give this about 0-10% chance of being heard the scotus is a worthless corrupt whore hole of spineless and compromised elitists
they're more afraid of BLM than us.
It's a cop out - they all just want Trump out so they can go back to the good old days where they jerk each other off.
Nice title
For real, “not breaking” is way more eye catching at this point than a bunch of siren emojis and exclamation marks.
🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️BOOM BREAKING BOMBSHELL NOTHINGBURGER 🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️ GET THE FUCK IN THIS GODDAMMED THREAD TO COMMENT AND UPDOOT HOLY SHIT HAPPENING 🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️ FUCK YAH COOMING EVERYWHERE 🚨🚨🚨⚠️⛔️☣️☣️☢️☢️⚠️⚠️⚠️
He just "boomed" them
Not Boom is the new Boom
Ok not boomer
This thread is getting weird...
DE-BOOMED.
(!) This claim about not breaking status has been deboooonked
you said it, communism sucks
So what if a court, or several, rules that there was widespread election fraud in Feb 2021? Are they expecting us to say ´well shucks, Biden cheated, but is now President and will stay President´? Even if they impeach and remove him, Kamala ran on the same fraudulent ticket. What legal option would be left to remedy this clusterfuck of an election? At that point I only see 4th box options, to be honest.
Many of us are reaching a breaking point
Sorry lady you used 8.5x11 paper and we need the less common but totally standard 8.495x11.001. No rights for you.
Close the door on your way out so the public can't hear Roberts fucking kids.
You know right now they are trying to find some bs excuse to dismiss
I'm not really surprised, but it was so strange to see the appeals to the SCOTUS to submit their amicus briefs on NORMAL PAPER rather than in the weird bound booklet size they usually use.
Tradition for tradition's sake, not because it is more efficient or has a productivity gain, just because that's the way it's always been done.
Well this is an internal case, so here's hoping.
Tired of shit Breaking
What about commie skulls?
That would be the good kind of breaking
Federalist society judges, dismissed.
Why are all Federalist society judges seem to be so compromised.
I was the FS chapter president at my law school 2004-2006. Attended many national FS events, including the national student symposium at Columbia Univ. in NYC in February 2006. The keynote speaker at that event was none other than neocon NeverTrumper John Bolton. Everyone fawned all over him. Hundreds of high profile government lawyers, GOPe politicians, and federal court judges were in attendance (and at the social events with law students that followed). The FS does a great job of getting the conservative message out and is the only safe place for conservative law students in a sea of liberal idiot law students and professors. Still, the idolatry they heaped on Bolton always left a bad taste in my mouth. FS recommended John Roberts. They are suspect.
I can't wrap my head around why anyone would fawn over that broom-stached treasonous fuck face.
Because the society is corrupt.
Because the federalist society is the republican establishment. The skeptics here tried to say ACB was a piece of shit and every here was like no no shies good. She held up a piece of paper at her senate hearing.
Probably more obsessed with the process and the system than with justice.
Likely because FS itself is.
★ Supreme Court Update
In addition to these cases, the Trump Campaign is also filing additional cases as an Emergency Petition for an Extraordinary Writ
Great they're docketed but without 10,000 armed pedes demonstrating that people are the government, the strength of America, nothing to stop them from wiping their ass with the constitution
Is MI Kraken like Mi General? We can expect a Chilean Cthulu to appear in front of the full SCOTUS bench to eat the liberal justices?
Thank for cleaning up Gatewaypundit's shit.
They have the worst site layout. I thought it was some clickbait site first time I went there
Upvote for the title
Everyone ready to be disappointed?
You can only be disappointed if you have any kind of expectation.
January 14th?
Yep. Same with the Georgia case.
The votes will be counted and certified in the congress on January 6
Calling it now. They will say that the votes have already been counted and certified and its too late to do anything.
Turns out the jury box is full of shit.
THIS MEANS NOTHING. On the docket means someone sent the papers and the filing fee
Which Supreme Court?
State or Federal?
SCOTUS. Answer’s due on Jan 14th.
Jan 14? Fucking hell...
Why dismiss the Texas case the same week yet push this case to the 11th hour? What gives?
Rumour has it the CCP has them on their hit-list as they have their addresses, So if they agree to take on the case for Trump, They'll just disappear all of a sudden.
SCOTUS will betray us again. I no longer have faith in them. Cocaine "Bitch" was the one that wanted the 3 of them nominated and we know he is a Swamp Dwelling Treasonous Cuck now. I hope Trump knew this but it's hard to say.
They already rejected it. You can't make this stuff up.
BREAKING: thegatewaypundit posts an article without the word breaking in the title.
I have zero faith in the supreme court at this point.
They denied it without reason
BOOM! BREAKING! GET IN HERE! WOW! :)
Okay, in the 1/1000000 chance that this doesn’t get slapped down, what is the actually remedy? I mean the best that can be done is decertification correct?
"Oops"
@LLinWood In discussing @realDonaldTrump in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.”
Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.
Greatest title!
I heard they weren't even returning her calls or emails, scotus admin. I mean.
Our cowards of The US Supreme Court just said NO! Thanks to Roberts!
Can we do something to ensure they not weasel out?
its anyone organizing a rally or everyone is home because holidays?
Slowly but surely................... It's happening.
I think he's giving everyone a chance to do the right thing. So regardless of their decision........ it's happening.
BOOM!!!!
DOOM!!!!!
This is the 50th time ive seen this info posted in 4 days. How can yall not notice the date is Jan 14th tbats way to fucking long.
We merely need to make them more afraid of us than they are of the left, since that's apparently how things work now.
SCOTUS are cowards. They won't touch it.
Big fucking deal. Will be dismissed by Friday. Wow...right again. Dismissed Thursday night. Damn I thought Powell was a charlatan trying to sell books, now I know she is.
FTFY
That's a pretty fucking retarded take in the situation. Are you seriously implying that Sidney is the issue with SCOTUS?
She doesn't have the goods. She's shilling her book. If she did it would have been dumped. All the solid evidence was destroyed long ago and everything she has is weak evidence or balderdash. She's been taking us for a ride. I feel dumb for falling for it.
The goods have by and large been presented. Fuck off this site, shill.
...and it's gone. Please step aside for customers that have standing.
A paraphrase from a South Park episode and most likely. :(
Got to keep hoping for the best. We also now have the Dominion machines audit and even more audits coming.
Made it all the way there just to get thrown out.
You get my upvote for the clever headline. The content was nice too.
And we will see now if the reason the Texas suit was rejected was because the Supreme Court has Constitutionalists on it or cucks.
SCOTUS out of the picture. Legislature next (the more correct venue actually). If they fail, then martial law.
And it’s gone
They must've slipped it in while the judges were having their midafternoon gummie bears and blankie nap
Gateway Pundit just browses TD and regurgitates what's here at their own website. They do this for what looks to be all of their articles.
Another order comment said they have until Jan 14 for a response. Not sure if that's this case. Anyone know?
PROGRESSING
SCOTUS justices are shitting in their pants
I see the title was toned down appropriately...😂