So let me get this straight. These so-called high powered lawyers mis-estimated whether SCOTUS would assume Texas has standing (standing is the first basic test to determine in a U.S. court if a plaintiff is qualified to bring a suit). Give me a break! Only 2nd or 3rd string constitutional lawyers could make this error.
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:36 AM Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 06:17:23PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > Citing a lack of standing, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a brief > order that the state "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest > in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," adding "All > other pending motions are dismissed as moot." > > > > Supreme Court Tosses Texas Bid To Overturn Election > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-tosses-texas-bid-overturn-election > > > > > > > > Well, citizens of the swing states have standing, so they can file. > > > > Trumpers, both legal eagles and folks in their personal capacity, in the > 4 swing states (GA, PA, WI, MI?) need to file this case from their home > turf, as their interest is surely direct and personal - effected personally. > > > > I guess this is new territory for some folks... > > > Once parties with sufficient standing ARE properly filed and listed, the > Amicus Curiae 19 states can still join in support. > > Just need lots of folks WITH standing in the 4 swing states at issue - > this is what SCOTUS implied "insufficient standing", i.e. we need folks who > DO have standing! > > Voters in GA, PA, MI, WI, each DO have direct standing. Folks from EACH > of these 4 states must now file, in order to solve this technicality of > "insufficient standing". > > Good luck from Aus! >
