95
posted ago by WinsAnon ago by WinsAnon +95 / -0

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.

  1. Establish an injury.

  2. The injury needs to be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.

  3. The plaintiff must seek a remedy that redresses that injury.

  4. 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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf