They have. Not every lawsuit was done improperly. You're launching a ton of lawsuits with basically the same complaint and they're including something that usually isn't in lawsuits but it makes sense for these cases. "We saw irregularities here, here, and here and therefore there is major doubt cast because if the irregularity/fraud existed there, then it could potentially exist in other similarly run areas (Dem dominated counties, Dominion software using counties). There's going to be a lot of copy paste used in filing these.
The courts had 0 intention of viewing these cases anyways. Take the Texas case for example. Not filed improperly and for a state with a grievance against another state, the actual precedent is obviously to head to federal court. But it was dismissed on lacking standing... besides the fact that standing is a pretty stupid thing that's now almost always applied to our legal system, Texas included why they had standing and were dismissed anyways without the court even allowing them to argue it.
Every lawyer worth their salt knew the Texas case was dead on arrival due to the standing issues, Texas' argument for why they had an injury-in-fact was unprecedented and falls apart with the tiniest bit of scrutiny (it literally rests upon a hypothetical scenario, a big no-no when trying to argue injury-in-fact). It's funny, criticism of standing requirements used to be a left-wing talking point.
These legal challenges to unlawfully altered election procedures aren't really what I was talking about anyway, I'm talking about actual fraud. Ballots scanned more than once, voting machine fuckery, illegals voting, fake votes, and so on. Can't kill that with laches, and Trump has easily established standing in all of his suits.
Get better lawyers that won't fumble procedural issues, and that don't sue in the wrong court.
They have. Not every lawsuit was done improperly. You're launching a ton of lawsuits with basically the same complaint and they're including something that usually isn't in lawsuits but it makes sense for these cases. "We saw irregularities here, here, and here and therefore there is major doubt cast because if the irregularity/fraud existed there, then it could potentially exist in other similarly run areas (Dem dominated counties, Dominion software using counties). There's going to be a lot of copy paste used in filing these.
The courts had 0 intention of viewing these cases anyways. Take the Texas case for example. Not filed improperly and for a state with a grievance against another state, the actual precedent is obviously to head to federal court. But it was dismissed on lacking standing... besides the fact that standing is a pretty stupid thing that's now almost always applied to our legal system, Texas included why they had standing and were dismissed anyways without the court even allowing them to argue it.
Every lawyer worth their salt knew the Texas case was dead on arrival due to the standing issues, Texas' argument for why they had an injury-in-fact was unprecedented and falls apart with the tiniest bit of scrutiny (it literally rests upon a hypothetical scenario, a big no-no when trying to argue injury-in-fact). It's funny, criticism of standing requirements used to be a left-wing talking point.
These legal challenges to unlawfully altered election procedures aren't really what I was talking about anyway, I'm talking about actual fraud. Ballots scanned more than once, voting machine fuckery, illegals voting, fake votes, and so on. Can't kill that with laches, and Trump has easily established standing in all of his suits.