Here's how standing works. You have to be PERSONALLY hurt. The argument the courts are "standing" on is that although cheating in the election "generally" hurts, you weren't "personally" hurt. It's bogus, but they're lawyers, remember they'd have happily gotten Bin Laden off on a technicality if he'd have survived to trial
Seriously, that's what it means?!!! What a ridiculous loophole. So we'd have to somehow prove a personal injury. Does emotionally or mentally or fiscally work? there has to be a way! I know there are some real genius pedes on this site as well as legal pros, someone has to have an idea. If they use loopholes, they may be one for us
So we'd have to somehow prove a personal injury. Does emotionally or mentally or fiscally work?
No, the courts have been pretty consistent that random private citizens can't sue over election results. But that's not a problem, because if you have a serious case then you should be able to get Trump or the Trump campaign to join the case as a plaintiff. Depending on the details of the case, even some other candidate or campaign, or the relevant state legislature or governor or something, could be a suitable plaintiff too.
The irony is that usually it's conservatives who think standing doctrine should be stricter to cut down on frivolous lawsuits, and liberals who think that courts should give people the benefit of the doubt and let them bring lawsuits if something important is at stake. The reason why standing has become stricter in recent years is because of the dominance of conservative judges. Though I doubt it would have made any difference with this cases - the ones that failed due to standing would clearly have failed at a later stage anyway (again, if they were serious cases the Trump campaign would have joined them as plaintiffs).
Btw, there are some other aspects to standing. For example you need to show that the court is actually capable of giving you what you want, and that your injury is closely connected to the thing you're complaining about. Iirc there were some cases that the Trump campaign lost on standing grounds because they failed on one of those prongs.
I know there are some real genius pedes on this site as well as legal pros, someone has to have an idea. If they use loopholes, they may be one for us
You really think the Trump campaign and the Republican party don't have qualified lawyers? The law isn't a box of magic tricks that can get you whatever you want if you look hard enough. It is largely based on coherent rules and principles. The reason why they didn't ultimately push these cases very hard (e.g. they didn't even attempt to appeal most of them) is because they could see they clearly weren't going to win.
Thank you so much for your reply, much appreciated. Crazy to think that with all of the evidence a simple matter of standing stops it. And I have no doubt Trump's lawyers attempted everything, was just curious if We The People could do something. Again, I really appreciate your generous response.
Here's how standing works. You have to be PERSONALLY hurt. The argument the courts are "standing" on is that although cheating in the election "generally" hurts, you weren't "personally" hurt. It's bogus, but they're lawyers, remember they'd have happily gotten Bin Laden off on a technicality if he'd have survived to trial
Seriously, that's what it means?!!! What a ridiculous loophole. So we'd have to somehow prove a personal injury. Does emotionally or mentally or fiscally work? there has to be a way! I know there are some real genius pedes on this site as well as legal pros, someone has to have an idea. If they use loopholes, they may be one for us
No, the courts have been pretty consistent that random private citizens can't sue over election results. But that's not a problem, because if you have a serious case then you should be able to get Trump or the Trump campaign to join the case as a plaintiff. Depending on the details of the case, even some other candidate or campaign, or the relevant state legislature or governor or something, could be a suitable plaintiff too.
The irony is that usually it's conservatives who think standing doctrine should be stricter to cut down on frivolous lawsuits, and liberals who think that courts should give people the benefit of the doubt and let them bring lawsuits if something important is at stake. The reason why standing has become stricter in recent years is because of the dominance of conservative judges. Though I doubt it would have made any difference with this cases - the ones that failed due to standing would clearly have failed at a later stage anyway (again, if they were serious cases the Trump campaign would have joined them as plaintiffs).
Btw, there are some other aspects to standing. For example you need to show that the court is actually capable of giving you what you want, and that your injury is closely connected to the thing you're complaining about. Iirc there were some cases that the Trump campaign lost on standing grounds because they failed on one of those prongs.
You really think the Trump campaign and the Republican party don't have qualified lawyers? The law isn't a box of magic tricks that can get you whatever you want if you look hard enough. It is largely based on coherent rules and principles. The reason why they didn't ultimately push these cases very hard (e.g. they didn't even attempt to appeal most of them) is because they could see they clearly weren't going to win.
Thank you so much for your reply, much appreciated. Crazy to think that with all of the evidence a simple matter of standing stops it. And I have no doubt Trump's lawyers attempted everything, was just curious if We The People could do something. Again, I really appreciate your generous response.
Found this the other day: https://dominionclassaction.com/
Thank you!!