I heard on a local radio station, this morning, that "ideology" (party politics) is not a protected class and this is the reason the courts did not hear any election fraud type incidents (2020). Maybe the conservatives should have sued on disenfranchisement issues rather than what they sued on. They, I believe, are smarter than the radio hosts and me, but who knows today. Kari Lake should sue on the right premise so her case will get to a court (maybe).
Thanks for your reply. As I said this was something I heard on a local radio talk show. I thought it made sense--I saw that you put disenfranchised voters in your headline, but I didn't think the lawsuits from Trump's 2020 were on the disenfranchised voter, and were on a protected class suit, which the talk show hosts (2 man show, morning) said that political, I used, ideology was not a protected class in the constitution. The were saying just because a party doesn't agree with you is not a reason to rule an election is fraud. I don't know if I cleared up what I was thinking or not, but I hope you get the point I tried to make. I am glad you responded to let me know the lawsuits were on states violating their own laws and not anything else. I agree the whole country was harmed. But for the Supreme Court to rule the president didn't have "standing" is, to me, totally ridiculous.
I heard on a local radio station, this morning, that "ideology" (party politics) is not a protected class and this is the reason the courts did not hear any election fraud type incidents (2020). Maybe the conservatives should have sued on disenfranchisement issues rather than what they sued on. They, I believe, are smarter than the radio hosts and me, but who knows today. Kari Lake should sue on the right premise so her case will get to a court (maybe).
Thanks for your reply. As I said this was something I heard on a local radio talk show. I thought it made sense--I saw that you put disenfranchised voters in your headline, but I didn't think the lawsuits from Trump's 2020 were on the disenfranchised voter, and were on a protected class suit, which the talk show hosts (2 man show, morning) said that political, I used, ideology was not a protected class in the constitution. The were saying just because a party doesn't agree with you is not a reason to rule an election is fraud. I don't know if I cleared up what I was thinking or not, but I hope you get the point I tried to make. I am glad you responded to let me know the lawsuits were on states violating their own laws and not anything else. I agree the whole country was harmed. But for the Supreme Court to rule the president didn't have "standing" is, to me, totally ridiculous.