Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It might be helpful (not necessarily in re: to standing) to consider this:
Every year, the Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for writ of certiorari,...
There is absolutely no reason to consider it.
Why don't you learn the meaning of "court of original jurisdiction" and get back to us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
The Presidential election is multiple state elections... not a federal one. The Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how their elections are run. You would need to file a suit in the state if you feel your rights in regards to state law were violated (which is what Texas is claiming here).
Correct.
Even then there are issues. No one has a "right" for a particular candidate to win or a particular outcome for any election. I see no federal question at issue. At most, someone might have standing to file a writ of mandamus in a State court to compel their own elected or appointed officials to perform their duties in accordance with the statutes.
The only reason the courts are refusing to listen to any of the lawsuits is that they do not want to deal with it and they do not want Donald Trump to be elected President.
If they wanted President Trump to remain in office, they would listen to the evidence instead of making up excuses like no standing...I guess Georgia is going to have to prosecute themselves to have any standing.
The only reason the courts are refusing to listen to any of the lawsuits is that they do not want to deal with it and they do not want Donald Trump to be elected President.
If they wanted President Trump to remain in office, they would listen to the evidence instead of making up excuses like no standing...I guess Georgia is going to have to prosecute themselves to have any standing.
why was none of this evidence presented in the several dozen cases so far?
Just to help out. I read this week that Texas sued New Mexico over a water issue.
The SC heard that one and ruled in favor of NM.
This would be an example of a state suing a state and making it to the SC.
If some can explain it may help with understanding.
In those cases there is basically "Direct standing", meaning there is no legal ambiguity of it.
New York and New Jersey were involved in an Original jurisdiction case to see who actually owned Ellis Island.
Ohio and Kentucky were at odds over where the dividing line of each state was in the Ohio river, if allowing for accretion or avulsion was a factor, etc.
Indiana and Kentucky were involved in a similar river boundary dispute.
The only reason the courts are refusing to listen to any of the lawsuits is that they do not want to deal with it and they do not want Donald Trump to be elected President."
Courts don't deal with cases that are not within their jurisdiction. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Judges who actually ran as Republicans or who were selected by Republicans also tossed out these cases.
Quote:
If they wanted President Trump to remain in office, they would listen to the evidence instead of making up excuses like no standing...I guess Georgia is going to have to prosecute themselves to have any standing.
Who they (that is, the judges) want as president should not have any bearing on how they handle the cases...you seem to think it should.
At any rate, there hasn't been any judge unwilling to hear any evidence Trump's lawyers have been willing to present.
The problem has been: Trump's lawyers have not presented any evidence of fraud in court to a judge. They don't even present a legal complaint of fraud to the judge.
And, btw, the Supreme Court is an appellate court. They never hear evidence.
In those cases there is basically "Direct standing", meaning there is no legal ambiguity of it.
New York and New Jersey were involved in an Original jurisdiction case to see who actually owned Ellis Island.
Ohio and Kentucky were at odds over where the dividing line of each state was in the Ohio river, if allowing for accretion or avulsion was a factor, etc.
Indiana and Kentucky were involved in a similar river boundary dispute.
Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
