Justice Thomas began his opinion with this text:
"At all stages of litigation, a plaintiff must maintain a personal interest in the dispute. The doctrine of standing generally assesses whether that interest exists at the outset, while the doctrine of mootness considers whether it exists throughout the proceedings. To demonstrate standing, the plaintiff must not only establish an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct but must also seek a remedy that redresses that injury. And if in the course of litigation a court finds that it can no longer provide a plaintiff with any effectual relief, the case generally is moot. This case asks whether an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury. We hold that it can."
Stick with me here. All the election cases were rejected by SCOTUS based on standing, mootness and lack of a remedy that redresses the injury.
What Thomas slyly does here is lays out a roadmap for future cases on the election. Go through this simple checklist and satisfy each for the Court in turn.
-
Establish an injury.
-
The injury needs to be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.
-
The plaintiff must seek a remedy that redresses that injury.
-
Explain how the remedy is effectual.
Overcome those steps and you have initial standing in a case that has not become moot.
Go to work, Trump's attorneys. This seems like a simple path to hearings in the SCOTUS on the election.
By the way, as I read Roberts' dissent, it further reveals (to me) that he also saw Thomas' opinion as a commentary on the election cases. I say this because Roberts goes FAR out of his way to say there is no real remedy for the ex-Gwinnett student because he is no longer at the college. This is precisely the rationale he used to champion the rejection of Trump's election cases, saying to his colleagues that Trump has no real remedy because Biden has been sworn in. Yet, Thomas' opinion is now law, and it says that even a nominal remedy is good enough for standing.
Boom. I think this case is potentially HUGE.
interesting. I personally believe the election fraud stuff will be handled by the military but there are investigations going on at local levels so will be interesting to follow. just want the truth to come out.
This should have more up votes.
If Biden were to be removed due to the 25th amendment, or impeachment for [Ukraine extortion] crimes, Kamala would be required to be sworn in as president.
At that point, prior to her being sworn in as president, would that legally qualify as a persistent personal interest (For Trump) due to the election?
If so, does that open up a potential avenue for remedy by the courts? Could the SCOTUS provide "remedy" by halting, or postponing the swearing in of Kamala?
Basically what I am wondering about is if there might be yet another scenario that could meet the criteria for legal standing (court challenge) should Kamala attempt to be sworn in as president?
There needs to be an effectual remedy. What can 9 justices say that would give a remedy? Instating Trump as president will not magically remove all the traitors. And the corruption is so deep and prevalent that the courts can never root it out.
The effectual remedy involve military action.
Nullifying the election due to observable fraud is the remedy. They tried like crazy to avoid even considering that because they didn't want nine people (or even five people in a majority decision) to replace the will of 155 million voters unless the evidence was crystal clear. So they reasoned that Trump had no standing before the election because he couldn't demonstrate any wrongdoing yet. And the said Trump had no standing after the election because they didn't think he had asserted an effectual remedy and lower courts had said there was no injury.
Now this case says even nominal damages is enough for standing.
Great, so the election is nullified. Who is president?
Really, we need to nullify at least the last 6 years of elections. Now we have no senators, no representatives. Who is president?
The constitution contained an "off" switch. The "off" switch happens if we don't have elections for 6 years. No one is senator. No one is representative. No one is president. There is no government. The supreme court still exists but what can it do? Name a president?
What if the supreme court is compromised too? All the justices appointed since fraudulent elections have been happening are no longer a justice.
This is the conundrum we are in right now. Physical evidence exists that NO election for the past 6 years and likely beyond have been legit. We have no idea how many elections were real or faked. What if they were all faked? What if there is no legitimate governor, state legislature, state courts? What then?
The military truly is the only way.
Occupying DC means that the military controls the federal government.
If NG occupies state capitols, then they control the state.
The military can choose, out of the benevolence of their hearts, to hold new elections, to reboot everything from the beginning, just as we did after 1776.
The people can try to form their own governments, too, but that will be messy.
I see it slightly differently- as in, there is no course of remedy to redress, that they can provide... ie. The military is the only way! Case is moot in SCOTUS
And I hear, "These elections were supplied for an active company charter. the charter is set to close BEFORE ww can address the issue.
seeing as how one party cannot exist by time we open session, monetary effects will be dissolved before we start session, and all assets will be stripped, We cannot in good effect hold defendent to court they are legally unable to finish.
“snuck something in?”
That is not how the judiciary works
You aren't understanding. I don't mean he snuck some language in that the other Justices weren't able to read. I'm saying he wrote an opinion that seemed clear and non controversial as it relates to this particular case, but that it is a Trojan Horse in how it can be applied to the election cases. I think Roberts saw what this meant for the election cases (particularly because he's the one I believe who orchestrated the rejection of cert for those cases) but the other Justices did not see it.
Believe me, I know very well how the judiciary works. I've been a lawyer for 30 years.
But it doesn’t matter because the language of this case has no bearing on the decisions of corrupt justices in regards to future cases.