:rotfl:
:rotfl:
I was serious in asking how those other cases turned out. As a Georgia resident and voter, I followed the challenges in Georgia because I have a vested interest in the outcomes. After seeing the disaster that the "overturn Georgia" effort became, I had a decidedly less vested interest in the proceedings in other states but really wouldn't mind a recap if you had one handy.Did the Supreme Court hear the case where Pennsylvania Judges rather than the Legislator changed voting rules and regulations? You know you really don't have to adopt the continuous smart ass tone. That is unless you do have to.
I believe the Supreme Court refused to hear that case didn't it?
My apologies then. I would suggest at this point however that all of us have a vested interest how all of this turns out at the National level. It is my understanding that there are still some cases that will be presented to the SCOTUS after Biden is crowned.I was serious in asking how those other cases turned out. As a Georgia resident and voter, I followed the challenges in Georgia because I have a vested interest in the outcomes. After seeing the disaster that the "overturn Georgia" effort became, I had a decidedly less vested interest in the proceedings in other states but really wouldn't mind a recap if you had one handy.
Our vested interest.....has left the buildingMy apologies then. I would suggest at this point however that all of us have a vested interest how all of this turns out at the National level. It is my understanding that there are still some cases that will be presented to the SCOTUS after Biden is crowned.
Pardon my asking, but which cases?My apologies then. I would suggest at this point however that all of us have a vested interest how all of this turns out at the National level. It is my understanding that there are still some cases that will be presented to the SCOTUS after Biden is crowned.
Supreme Court refuses to expedite Trump cases to overturn Joe Biden's election - UPI.comPardon my asking, but which cases?
Thanks, the best info I was getting while searching were all from early and mid December.Supreme Court refuses to expedite Trump cases to overturn Joe Biden's election - UPI.com
This was just a quick search. I am sure that you can do a more thorough one if you have the desire.
Exactly. When the court refuses to hear a case because of lack of standing or merit, that is adjudication.It's worth remembering that when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, that is a judgement.
DH
If they decline a case for lack of standing that is not adjudication. It is a statement saying-- you claim may be valid and need decided but you personally do not have a basis for the claim. Someone else may be a valid complainant and we would hear it from them, but not you.Exactly. When the court refuses to hear a case because of lack of standing or merit, that is adjudication.
You are correct.If they decline a case for lack of standing that is not adjudication. It is a statement saying-- you claim may be valid and need decided but you personally do not have a basis for the claim. Someone else may be a valid complainant and we would hear it from them, but not you.
Nemo
But on the case that went to the Supreme Court that I think was initially filed by the State of Texas, I think Trump was on that as well as a bunch of other states.You are correct.
I do not understand how, hypothetically, California could ever have standing to decide that "Texas voted wrong". That, at its core, is what I am having trouble grasping and would be appreciative if someone could explain what I'm missing.But on the case that went to the Supreme Court that I think was initially filed by the State of Texas, I think Trump was on that as well as a bunch of other states.
Someone is going to have to explain to me why Trump lacked standing on that case, not to mention that it seems to me like very citizen in the USA had standing since this probably invalidated their votes for POTUS.
And you think a case that is about whether or not a state allowed the illegal votes for President of the United States is not "great public import" ?SCOTUS is not an error correcting court. They take cases of great public import. They do not take every case where they believe the petitioner's claims have merit.
It seems completely obvious to me. I voted for Trump and if he was not elected because of voting fraud and scam because the state of Pennsylvania allowed unlawful votes to be counted and those led to the election of Biden...I got screwed as did every other person in this country that voted for Trump. I have standing because I'm an American citizen who voted legally and was cheated because some states allowed fraud to give someone else the election.I do not understand how, hypothetically, California could ever have standing to decide that "Texas voted wrong". That, at its core, is what I am having trouble grasping and would be appreciative if someone could explain what I'm missing.
That does not give you standing.It seems completely obvious to me. I voted for Trump
Phantom rainbow farting purple unicorns certainly do not grant standing.and if he was not elected because of voting fraud and scam because the state of Pennsylvania allowed unlawful votes to be counted and those led to the election of Biden...
Your vote counted just as much as everyone else's. That clearly isn't standing either.I got screwed as did every other person in this country that voted for Trump.
Neither you as a Texas resident nor the political leaders of your state have standing to decide how any other state conducts their elections nor the results other states' elections "should" produce. To allow outsiders to dictate election results undermines the whole point of democratic process.I have standing because I'm an American citizen who voted legally and was cheated because some states allowed fraud to give someone else the election.
Allowing fraud and scams that allow people to violate the law and the state constitutions to dictate election results undermines the whole point of a democratic process.That does not give you standing.
Phantom rainbow farting purple unicorns certainly do not grant standing.
Your vote counted just as much as everyone else's. That clearly isn't standing either.
Neither you as a Texas resident nor the political leaders of your state have standing to decide how any other state conducts their elections nor the results other states' elections "should" produce. To allow outsiders to dictate election results undermines the whole point of democratic process.
I guess my reply to this is "but there wasn't fraud and scams".Allowing fraud and scams that allow people to violate the law and the state constitutions to dictate election results undermines the whole point of a democratic process.
This is factually accurate but not germane to the 2020 POTUS election nor Texas standing to dictate election results in other states.Allowing fraud and scams that allow people to violate the law and the state constitutions to dictate election results undermines the whole point of a democratic process.