You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
In their brief, the Supreme Court said it only ruled based on state jurisdiction and not on election law. Trump's lawsuits are still in play and election law hasn't been addressed yet.
I already explained that. The candidate is the one who has standing because they are the one who receives direct personal injury from violations of the constitution. As of right now, none of the president's suits have been rejected.
Having standing involves making a complaint for which the court is able to deliver a remedy. SCOTUS already signalled that the fraud opened a constitutional can of worms, this could simply be their way of throwing it into the too hard basket.
I don't think it was a smokescreen. It was just another attempt to right this wrong. It was a long shot, but a shot worth taking none the less. I myself didn't have a lot of confidence in this case from the start and thought the SCOTUS would reject it based on legal procedure, which is what they did. In their brief they were very specific and narrow in their ruling. They rejected the case because only individuals who received direct injury from violations of the constitution may have their case heard in the Supreme Court. The aggrieved candidates, and only the aggrieved candidates, as well as their parties, have any legal standing. Not only does this not indicate how SCOTUS will rule on the president's case, it doesn't even tell us if they'll hear or reject it. Basically, where we are now is exactly where we were three days ago before the Texas suit materialized. The primary case to keep your eye on is still the Pennsylvania case.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Buff_Awesome 1 point 7 points 8 points (+8|-1) ago
In their brief, the Supreme Court said it only ruled based on state jurisdiction and not on election law. Trump's lawsuits are still in play and election law hasn't been addressed yet.
[–] selpai 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
You must be joking. If states don't have standing, then who does?
[–] Buff_Awesome ago
I already explained that. The candidate is the one who has standing because they are the one who receives direct personal injury from violations of the constitution. As of right now, none of the president's suits have been rejected.
[–] SerialLarper ago
Having standing involves making a complaint for which the court is able to deliver a remedy. SCOTUS already signalled that the fraud opened a constitutional can of worms, this could simply be their way of throwing it into the too hard basket.
[–] SaturnDust 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Hope you are right!!
[–] Israel_Did_9_11_ ago
OP is FAKE NEWS
[–] Meme_Factory_1776 [S] ago (edited ago)
So it was a smoke screen.. why?
[–] Buff_Awesome 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't think it was a smokescreen. It was just another attempt to right this wrong. It was a long shot, but a shot worth taking none the less. I myself didn't have a lot of confidence in this case from the start and thought the SCOTUS would reject it based on legal procedure, which is what they did. In their brief they were very specific and narrow in their ruling. They rejected the case because only individuals who received direct injury from violations of the constitution may have their case heard in the Supreme Court. The aggrieved candidates, and only the aggrieved candidates, as well as their parties, have any legal standing. Not only does this not indicate how SCOTUS will rule on the president's case, it doesn't even tell us if they'll hear or reject it. Basically, where we are now is exactly where we were three days ago before the Texas suit materialized. The primary case to keep your eye on is still the Pennsylvania case.