remind me of The mendez bros

sick

love
boris

Egads, this site is so boring.

There are still a few other suits waiting for the USSC's are there not? Not that Trump's winning prospects are anything more than just hanging by a thread, it seems.

Or not.

All of DC is talking into its pockets.

Then who does have standing?

The President or candidates to be a delegate (elector) to the Electoral College. Only they appear to be able to show the particularized injury necessary to establish standing.

Trump has been conspicuously absent from lawsuits. Trump filed to intervene on the Texas suit (join Texas as a party), but Texas was held to lack standing which made his filing moot. There was nothing for Trump to join, so the question his standing was not at issue. Other dismissed suits have been filed by the corporate entity, the Trump campaign. Suits have been filed by people claiming standing as a registered voter.

So, it's punted back to the states?

No. This was the states held to lack standing in the attempt to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Court to sue other states about how other states conducted elections in those states.

Basically, it is back to Trump as President, filing in a state court or in a federal District court, and reaching Scotus only on appellate jurisdiction. A candidate can show a particularized injury, whereas John Q. Voter cannot.

Here is a good explanation from TheDonald (the website, not Trump)

https://thedonald.win/p/11R4JGEHkU/on-scotus-from-a-lawyer/

On SCOTUS (from a lawyer)
posted 19 hours ago by TheNixonTapes +8257 / -11

Things are not over. But let me put SCOTUS into perspective.

Yes, GA, PA, MI, and WI, all violated the Constitution. All serious people concur with that assessment. But standing, objectively, was going to be difficult to assert. Texas did make a pretty creative argument, to be sure. Standing was sort of 50-50 given there is literally no precedent for this type of suit. We must commend those who stood with us, even against the odds. Everyone else, fuck 'em.

===========================================================

Apart from the Texas suit, you must keep in mind all election-related lawsuits can be distinguished by the the stage during the election period they are brought, the parties bringing them, and the court in which they are brought.

There are three defined stages to this fight: (A) pre-election litigation; (B) post-election, pre-certification litigation; and (C) post-election, post-certification litigation.

The parties relevant for our purposes are (1) POTUS in his personal capacity/Trump campaign and (2) all other third parties (e.g., state-level GOP, private citizens, such as Sidney P and L. Wood and their plaintiffs, etc.).

The courts are obviously distinguished between State (S) and Federal (F).

[I will occasionally combine these alphanumeric references to discuss particular litigation strategies. For example, a reference to an (A-1-F) lawsuit would reference a pre-election lawsuit (A) brought by POTUS (1) in Federal court (F).]

Most of the attention-grabbing litigation has been post-election, pre-certification lawsuits brought by third parties in Federal court (B-2-F). From a strategy standpoint, these suits puzzled me.

First, Federal court was always less desirable of a venue than State court, because Federal courts almost never intervene in post-election matters. (The only exception to that general rule is an appeal from a state court of last resort to SCOTUS, such as Bush v. Gore.)

Second, these (B-2-F) lawsuits sought to enjoin certification of the state election results. I am unaware of any court ever granting this type of relief. The reason no such relief has ever been granted is because the laws of almost every state require certification of results before one can file an election contest in court. (Some states also require certification as a condition precedent to requesting a recount and/or for an automatic recount to occur.)

While POTUS did attempt to stop PA and MI certifications, several factors diminished the feasibility of those suits as time progressed, a subject which I do not discuss here.

The key lawsuits to watch have always been the election contests.

First, an election contest was how Bush v. Gore got to SCOTUS, which demonstrates how these types of lawsuits present a more plausible path to SCOTUS review.

Second, standing is almost never a problem, because most state statutes only permit the candidates to bring election contests. The candidate always meets the three key requirements of standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability).

Third, election contests must be brought in state court. Another issue with Federal court is that many of the arguments in the post-election lawsuits have focused on violations of state law. Federal courts do not interpret state law, cannot be called upon to enforce state law, and do not remedy violations of state law. The only time a Federal court examines a state law is when the court is examining whether the state law violates the Federal constitution.

Fourth, and this is the good part, POTUS has at least four active election contests that have been filed sort of under the radar:

-There is one in Wisconsin (10 EV), which the Wisconsin supreme court is set to hear tomorrow.

-There is one in Georgia (16 EV), which has a better chance of success than Sidney P or Lin Wood's suits, precisely because POTUS is a party to this suit, suing in his personal capacity.

-There is one in Nevada (6 EV), which the NV supreme court rejected, making it now prime for appeal to the SCOTUS.

-There is another one in Arizona (11 EV), which the AZ supreme court rejected, and which AZ GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward said they were appealing to SCOTUS.

===========================================================

I would be lying to you all if I said this was not an uphill battle. It always has been. And I am always cognizant of us not turning into the "here's how Bernie can still win" type of people from 2016. But objectively speaking, it is still not over.

And I will say...

WE DESERVE OUR DAY IN COURT GODDAMMIT!

I think I win a stuffed alligator for making that call.

Pennsylvania probably dles not qualify for a stuffed alligator. Perhaps a stuffed Punxsutawney Phil groundhog.

Just to recall what you posted on a previous thread:

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=63011&Disp=28#C28

On the standing of TX and other states to sue, you know more on this topic than me, of course, but it seems on its face TX would have no standing to sue as each state should be sovereign in its method of choosing electors, even if such states were to openly embrace a fraudulent election system within their own borders.

I believe your given reasoning is inaccurate. Other states have no sovereign right to openly embrace a fraudulent election. Texas was held to have no standing to sue on the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because Texas could not demonstrate a particularized injury by the alleged actions of other states, even if their actions had resulted in a fraudulent election. Had it chosen to do so, I am sure the court could have reached the opposite conclusion. The Texas legal theory was novel but worth a shot.

Trump the candidate may have been injured in way to give him standing to initiate litigation in the lower courts, without Texas as a state having been injured in a way to give it standing to initiate litigation at Scotus.

At the lower court, the litigation may allege fraud, corruption, and whatever failure to follow the law by the state, or by authorities of the state. Initiated at Scotus, the litigation alleges a Federal violation, specifically in the Texas case, a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Alleged state fraud does not necessarily translate to a showing of a violation of the Equal Protection clause, or that sort of injury having been particularly, and not generally, incurred by Texas and others.

A case may be brought to the federal District Court alleging that the state failed to follow the requirements of state or federal law, or that the state's laws contravened federal law.

Federal jurisdiction over elections is basically consigned to the legislative branch. The Judiciary declines to entertain matters of what is termed a political question, consigned to the legislature.

Comparing Bush v. Gore, there candidate Bush was personally injured by Florida failing to follow Florida law. The hand count could not be completed by the time Florida law required, so the hand counting was stopped, pursuant to Florida law.

There are still a few other suits waiting for the USSC's are there not? Not that Trump's winning prospects are anything more than just hanging by a thread, it seems.

Yes, there are other suits. I believe only the ones brought by Trump as a plaintiff are likely to survive. Perhaps there is something out there with a candidate EC elector which has a chance of being heard.

If a case survives to be heard on the merits, there may be a significant case to be offered. They must produce, show and demonstrate the evidence, not tell us of the alleged evidence they have.

I believe your given reasoning is inaccurate. Other states have no sovereign right to openly embrace a fraudulent election.

My comment about states being sovereign even to the point of openly having corrupt elections was restricted only to the context of the lack of right of other states to complain about it. If a state were to do that, there would be plenty of people able to complain within the state as well as the candidates.

But injured parties would not be limited to losing candidates. Elections, after all, are not about the candidates, but about the people whom the candidates will represent, so in my view any voter in the affected state has a right to a legal grievance in the event there is election fraud, even if a losing candidate would not be a formal party to such a suit.

But injured parties would not be limited to losing candidates. Elections, after all, are not about the candidates, but about the people whom the candidates will represent, so in my view any voter in the affected state has a right to a legal grievance in the event there is election fraud, even if a losing candidate would not be a formal party to such a suit.

Legal precedent is explicitly clear that standing requires a personal, particular injury and cannot result from any generalized injury. If one is injured as a citizen or voter, many others similarly situated are also injured, and the injury is generalized and not particular to any one individual.

From: Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, West Publishing, 2003, pp. 84-5.

c) Citizen Standing

At least in the absence of congressional legislation authorizing the suit, a citizen lacks a sufficient personal interest to challenge government acts as unconstitutional. Her interest is viewed as an "abstract injury" and a "generalized grievance" held in common with citizens generally. While individual justices have argued that the bar to citizen standing is a prudential rule of judicial self-restraint, the Court has generally treated it as an Art. III impediment.

Examples:

(1) A citizen lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute authorizing the director of the CIA to certify expenditures as a violation of the constitutional requirement of a regular accounting of the use of public funds. United States v. Richardson (1974).

(2) A citizen has only a generalized interest, insufficient to maintain standing, in challenging the holding of reservist status by a congressman in violation of the Incompatibility Clause which prohibits members of Congress from holding other office. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War (1974).

(3) A citizen and taxpayer lacks standing to challenge an HEW grant of surplus land under a federal statute to a religious institution as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Since the challenge was to an HEW action rather than a federal statute and since the government grant was based on the property power rather than the Taxing and Spending Clause, the challengers did not have standing under Flast as taxpayers. Nor does a citizen qua citizen have standing to challenge government action merely to correct constitutional wrongs. An Establishment Clause claim does not eliminate the Art. III requirement of personal injury. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State (1982).