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.
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.
Quick note - I'm not the OP :)