Can these judges take a moment to explain exactly how the hell we actually get standing? It feels like we're playing charades with a bunch of morons. TELL US WHAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO HEAR THE DAMN CASE AND SERVE JUSTICE
No one ever has standing to contest election fraud before it happens . Is this the new legal principle? Then if you bring a lawsuit after the fraud you are too late.
"Standing is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in any legislation governing the federal courts. The Constitution authorizes federal courts to decide "all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this U.S. Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." [Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution (emphasis added).] Article III, Section 2, refers to "controversies" but only for diversity cases that are not brought under federal or constitutional laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court conjured "standing" out of thin air, talking about a case and controversy – not case or controversy. They invented inconsistent, self-contradictory and illogical "rules." That's yet another way they can pick and choose policy outcomes while pretending to follow objective standards."
Can these judges take a moment to explain exactly how the hell we actually get standing? It feels like we're playing charades with a bunch of morons. TELL US WHAT YOU NEED IN ORDER TO HEAR THE DAMN CASE AND SERVE JUSTICE
They cant explain it because then people would know they are helping steal an election
No one ever has standing to contest election fraud before it happens . Is this the new legal principle? Then if you bring a lawsuit after the fraud you are too late.
Well they said you don't have standing after either. So not sure when there is standing anymore.
"Standing is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in any legislation governing the federal courts. The Constitution authorizes federal courts to decide "all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this U.S. Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." [Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution (emphasis added).] Article III, Section 2, refers to "controversies" but only for diversity cases that are not brought under federal or constitutional laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court conjured "standing" out of thin air, talking about a case and controversy – not case or controversy. They invented inconsistent, self-contradictory and illogical "rules." That's yet another way they can pick and choose policy outcomes while pretending to follow objective standards."
From WND Article: https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/supreme-court-thrown-future-elections-doubt/
🤡Fraud v2.0🤡
"There is no fraud, if you have a problem with the law wait till you have evidence."
Election happens, shady shit too.
"You have a problem with the law you should have brought this up before. Dismissed."
Hope for the best, be ready for the worst.
Heads on pikes
Somebody is going to have to get in and destroy every voting machine and tabulator. Hire BLM and antifa. They get away with everything