It’s incredible how the courts maneuver to avoid controversial cases. And each time they arbitrarily apply one of their excuses they cause injury to all of us.
The courts can say a case was brought to early, that it is not “ripe” with the end result being we have to suffer under a potentially unconstitutional situation instead of them preempting it.
Or they can cite laches, saying the case was brought too late. Result? We have to continue suffering under an unconstitutional situation indefinitely. How is that right?
And then there is standing. How is it possible in a constitutional Republic, that Texas did not have standing to sue the states that conducted unconstitutional elections? It’s not possible. We all know that. The Texas case was solid and it forced the hand of SCOTUS because it bypasses the lower courts.
Maybe they did? Very possible. But the Texas case against the other states was based on the fact the Governors, Secretaries of State, and even Election Clerks arbitrarily changed state election laws.
This is a power the constitution reserves to State Legislatures; therefore, the elections in those states were not only fraudulent, they were also unconstitutional. Texas may have had fraud, but it wouldn’t cause them to lack standing.
Courts are so fucked up. Rules made it clear you weren't welcome so you didn't even try? "No damage, no standing, fuck off." You have to throw yourself at the system and get ground up on purpose so you can challenge the system. The only people that have time to do that are minorities with nothing to lose. And people to finance their cases.
However, he said "we" have a lawsuit coming in 4-5 weeks.
If he's working with the audit, etc. then "we" could mean Arizona v. US
Neither Lindell nor Arizona can challenge how Wisconsin runs Wisconsin's elections, but Arizona might have standing to challenge how Congress counted Arizona's electoral votes (or lack of electoral votes).
If they (Arizona) says, "Wait, we never cast any electors! Those were fraudulent electors. The legislature never approved that..." That sounds like a different question.
I’ll save you the time and emotional investment: “he has no standing”
It’s incredible how the courts maneuver to avoid controversial cases. And each time they arbitrarily apply one of their excuses they cause injury to all of us.
The courts can say a case was brought to early, that it is not “ripe” with the end result being we have to suffer under a potentially unconstitutional situation instead of them preempting it.
Or they can cite laches, saying the case was brought too late. Result? We have to continue suffering under an unconstitutional situation indefinitely. How is that right?
And then there is standing. How is it possible in a constitutional Republic, that Texas did not have standing to sue the states that conducted unconstitutional elections? It’s not possible. We all know that. The Texas case was solid and it forced the hand of SCOTUS because it bypasses the lower courts.
Perhaps because Texas too had the same fraud as the other states? Just had the preferred outcome with Trump winning the state?
Maybe they did? Very possible. But the Texas case against the other states was based on the fact the Governors, Secretaries of State, and even Election Clerks arbitrarily changed state election laws.
This is a power the constitution reserves to State Legislatures; therefore, the elections in those states were not only fraudulent, they were also unconstitutional. Texas may have had fraud, but it wouldn’t cause them to lack standing.
Like these?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-woman-arrested-on-election-fraud-charges-based-on-project-veritas-video/ar-BB1cJ5tk
https://gellerreport.com/2020/10/democrat-judge-voter-fraud-houston.html/?fbclid=IwAR2Wv9PQcfNUj9vxeZJ8eKAl0lyX3NLtZhRuPTYF5xvQTySMzi0MbUGPBlU
several more can be found.
Let’s sue the Supreme Court for causing irreparable harm due to inaction. I wonder if that’s possible.
Courts are so fucked up. Rules made it clear you weren't welcome so you didn't even try? "No damage, no standing, fuck off." You have to throw yourself at the system and get ground up on purpose so you can challenge the system. The only people that have time to do that are minorities with nothing to lose. And people to finance their cases.
Yes, they'd throw out Lindell v. ...
However, he said "we" have a lawsuit coming in 4-5 weeks.
If he's working with the audit, etc. then "we" could mean Arizona v. US
Neither Lindell nor Arizona can challenge how Wisconsin runs Wisconsin's elections, but Arizona might have standing to challenge how Congress counted Arizona's electoral votes (or lack of electoral votes).
If they (Arizona) says, "Wait, we never cast any electors! Those were fraudulent electors. The legislature never approved that..." That sounds like a different question.
Go back to pdw
Must be new here