OldMaid

Devastating news, how will I ever recover?

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations: The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose.[1] The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[2] For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) Seems like the bolded is what pertains to this discussion, no? If they didn’t meet the threshold then that’s the end of the line. Which is what happened here. So what exactly are you complaining about?

Wait… That was you?

The only thing you posted was cases being dismissed on standing. That means that litigation was taken, but did not meet the requirements to show harm. Which BTW seems to follow a pattern from Trump’s team. He promised Ducey, the governor of Arizona, documentation/proof of his alleged "fraud" claims for AZ, then failed to produce it. Then he moved on to Rusty Bowers the then House Speaker in AZ offering the same bullshit trying to get him to replace their slate of electors. Bowers told them to send over the proof and then they could have a meeting. Would you like to guess what happened next?

He still should have played by the rules, IMO. This could absolutely look like interference to some people and might potentially backfire.

I’m going to go on record and say I’m against what Jack Smith did here. While I appreciate that he feels the public has a right to have this information, it goes against DOJ precedent. This is the same thing we complained about Comey doing to Clinton in the run up to the 2016 election. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Why don’t you tell us what legal actions that you feel that they did not take.

It had a good run, but got a little old towards the end. Check out Snowfall on Hulu/FX. That’s a criminally underrated show.

You sound like you’re drunk on cat piss.

Well then, maybe you shouldn’t have said "we".

Could somebody pat HT on the head? He’s begging for some acknowledgement.

I’m fairly positive that there would have been all sorts of lawsuits surrounding this. I’m sure if I felt like going down the rabbit hole, I could probably find some. I do however remember there being all kinds of challenges to the new election rules put in place for covid. They litigated everything they possibly could before and after the election and if I remember correctly-they only won one. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Yeah, that’s not a good look.

Speak for yourself. I like Gutter.

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I appreciate it. While I can’t recall every single lawsuit that the Trump team filed, I would think if this was a legitimate concern, it would have been one of them, no?

I’d love to hear why you think this is some big flex.

Could you please expound on that.

Every instance of Trump’s supposed election "fraud" claims were gone over with a fine tooth comb and litigated-which would have involved more than the person/persons who committed such "fraud"- so there’s that. You’re also conveniently leaving out that I left it open that MDC’s assertion was correct.

You are assuming that we would have found out about it. If Raffensperger had actually "found" those votes, why would he be compelled to tell us? He wouldn’t. If the election boards had been convinced to throw out Biden’s electors, would it had been questioned? My thoughts are we only found out because it failed. But let’s say you are right. Wasn’t everything drawn out long enough? Can you imagine the chaos if some or all of it had succeeded?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/jack-smith-donald-trump-filing/index.html

I’m broke.

Ok. Thank you, I have never heard of this.

Never lose the narrative, Rusty.

Maybe you should stop PM’img me it.