Yes. This has always been a reason for lack of standing. They should have figured that out. Kari Lake did, and she specifically stated that the cheating affected her specific outcome and had enough proof of the number of ballots to flip it.
And the real issue with standing, is that no citizen has any constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP. As a point of fact, we don't actually vote for either. We vote for ELECTORS, who then vote for POTUS/VP. Electors DO have an explicit constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP, a right which many states have suppressed for a very long time by passing and enforcing laws requiring Electors to essentially be messengers, couriers, merely conveying a vote, as opposed to exercising free agency which is essential to the nature of voting. Of course, SCOTUS recently fucked this in their 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo in 2021.
The only parties with absolute standing in these cases, are 1.) the Electors who were denied their office as the result of unlawful appointments, the result of fraudulent elections and 2.) The candidate who was denied the office he sought by the state officials who conducted unlawful elections and unlawfully appointed his opponent's pledged Electors on the basis of fraudulent elections.
States must still conduct their elections in compliance with the Constitution and valid federal statutes that regulate said elections. Yes, Congress does have some constitutional authority over federal elections,conducted by the states.
The disputed matter is of a constitutional nature (at state and federal levels) but not how Brunson attempted to argue. This "violation of oath" to exercise alleged authority that doesn't actually exist, was nonsense.
Does not hinge on there actually being election fraud. It hinges on the warning of 153 congressmen that the presence of fraud needed to investigated - discovered if indeed it was present - and the violation of the oath of office by anyone who obstructed that investigation.
SCOTUS denied election fraud cases. Don't see why they'd accept this case.
What was the basis for the denial?
lack of standing; supposedly he didn't prove that he had a "personal stake in the outcome of the action"
https://www.ntd.com/supreme-court-rejects-case-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election_894187.html
Yes. This has always been a reason for lack of standing. They should have figured that out. Kari Lake did, and she specifically stated that the cheating affected her specific outcome and had enough proof of the number of ballots to flip it.
The way I see it is that this case is utter BS.
They asking for a remedy that’s unconstitutional; that SCOTUS fires almost the entire Congress, POTUS and the VP.
SCOTUS can’t unseat elected officials, and that’s a good thing when you think about it.
This is so frustrating! We the people have standing, ffs.
They have an oath. Without an oath, what are they?
Tyrants.
And the real issue with standing, is that no citizen has any constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP. As a point of fact, we don't actually vote for either. We vote for ELECTORS, who then vote for POTUS/VP. Electors DO have an explicit constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP, a right which many states have suppressed for a very long time by passing and enforcing laws requiring Electors to essentially be messengers, couriers, merely conveying a vote, as opposed to exercising free agency which is essential to the nature of voting. Of course, SCOTUS recently fucked this in their 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo in 2021.
The only parties with absolute standing in these cases, are 1.) the Electors who were denied their office as the result of unlawful appointments, the result of fraudulent elections and 2.) The candidate who was denied the office he sought by the state officials who conducted unlawful elections and unlawfully appointed his opponent's pledged Electors on the basis of fraudulent elections.
States determine the manner of their elections, election fraud must be handled at the state level. Brunson is a federal issue - violation of Oath.
States must still conduct their elections in compliance with the Constitution and valid federal statutes that regulate said elections. Yes, Congress does have some constitutional authority over federal elections,conducted by the states.
The disputed matter is of a constitutional nature (at state and federal levels) but not how Brunson attempted to argue. This "violation of oath" to exercise alleged authority that doesn't actually exist, was nonsense.
The people responding to you are not looking at this objectively. They are just arguing their point with no regard to what you’re actually saying.
Does not hinge on there actually being election fraud. It hinges on the warning of 153 congressmen that the presence of fraud needed to investigated - discovered if indeed it was present - and the violation of the oath of office by anyone who obstructed that investigation.
That wasn't the point I was making
The hopium was unreal over the past few weeks on this case. I bit my tongue but people on this board should have realistic expectations..
and the dates that just don't make sense by adding up unscrupulous numbers hurts my head.
Triggering snowflakes in their safe space is a no no. Coddling is the order of the day!