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.
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.