On SCOTUS (from a lawyer)
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4JGEHkU/on-scotus-from-a-lawyer/
posted 9 hours ago by TheNixonTapes +7535 / -10
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!
https://thedonald.win/p/11R4NowlR3/as-an-american-citizen-in-a-stat/
As an American citizen in a state that follows the constitution, I was just told I have no legal standing to protest against states that disregard the constitution. They can cheat however they want, and as long as enough of them do the same, their guy wins and our guy doesn’t.
RogueLikely 306 points 5 hours ago +309 / -3
This is so simple to understand, and it’s why I don’t believe the bullshit about the SCOTUS dismissal being some sort of “hint” to try again. Texas DID have standing, and any layman can see that.
It’s time we red states and counties join together, form a Union, remove the current corrupt establishment from power, and reform it with true constitutionalists in every position.
permalink save report block reply
Harper42190 130 points 5 hours ago +130 / -0
I read an interesting article… “Standing” was made up in the last 100 years… Basically as a way to not take cases that the courts didn’t want to take a side in.
2ScoopsofCovfefe 22 points 5 hours ago +22 / -0
Have a link? I would be interested to learn more on that
Harper42190 36 points 5 hours ago +36 / -0
https://t.co/zA3P7lOi7S?amp=1
Briana_Raymaker 34 points 4 hours ago +34 / -0
Yes, thanks! As an attorney I hadn’t heard of how the standing requirement was created. I should have known it was BS just like the political doctrine.
Harper42190 45 points 4 hours ago +45 / -0
As not an Attorney, and furthest thing from it (PhD Stats), I feel like standing is a joke. I do not know as I said I am not an attorney, but to throw a case away like they did today when America is split 50/50 and none of the lower courts want to touch any of the cases brought, I feel like it does a great disservice to our country. Every case thus far has been dismissed due to standing. Ohh you sued before the election… No damages, dismissed standing… Ohh you sued after? nope shoulda brought this up before the election, dismissed standing.
Once again, I don’t know but I feel like SCOTUS should have heard it as it involved 4 states acting unconstitutionally that affected an election for federal office.
That’s my take.
Liberty4All 36 points 4 hours ago +36 / -0
Exactly. Judges are using the technicalities of law to avoid actually looking at the evidence and taking a tough stand, even thought the result of these dismissals is to deny the constitutional rights of the whole nation to free and fair elections.
It’s maddening.
I know Trump and his team have other legal avenues left to pursue, but I’m feeling the ticking clock very acutely.
day221 8 points 1 hour ago +8 / -0
It’s not even technicalities. It’s just mental gymnastics and word salad to avoid the real rational and logical conclusion that should have been made here. Their argument puts enough of a spin on things that they can fool the “average” person who won’t think twice – but upon scrutiny it is easily torn to shreds.
When states joined the union they agreed that elections of their common federal government would be subject to certain common rules, checks, and balances. SCOTUS basically said the way one state runs their elections is not the business of any other state, EVEN WHEN it’s in violation of this agreement.
It’s completely absurd.
Lenny_Kravitz2 7 points 2 hours ago +7 / -0
It is also a question of Original Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction.
TX seeking original jurisdiction would have allowed SCOTUS to review evidence. Appellate jurisdiction, which would be where Trump’s cases would end up, won’t.
The core issue is two fold. One is the election fraud and the evidence therein and the second is violations of the constitution via constitutional powers being usurped by branches of the state governments.
So far, none of those issues have been actually reviewed and decided on.
KYMAGApatriot1 19 points 4 hours ago +19 / -0
Number one: SCOTUS should have heard this case because it involves the most sacred right as an American citizen: the right to vote. And to expect that vote to be counted in a fair and ethical manner. That you are entitled to one vote, and only one vote, and one that shouldn’t be stolen from you. AND that the ballot you cast is counted for the person you voted for. Number two: To hear the election fraud and allow Trump to take office in 2021. As much as we want Trump in office, number one is the most important reason and SCOTUS should have stepped up to the plate
Briana_Raymaker 14 points 3 hours ago +14 / -0
SCOTUS should have heard it because they are literally the last step between war among the states. SCOTUS exists to peacefully resolve differences between sovereign powers. Now they have given no option but death. Hopefully the legislatures will finally step up and do their jobs. If not, we are officially at the 2nd American Revolution. Stay low and pick out the worst traitors now.
Harper42190 9 points 3 hours ago +9 / -0
The lawsuit had so much merit, it is crazy to me they wouldn’t hear it based on that alone. Seems like standing was solved by adding Trump and the electors clause… I just don’t get it