exact, and that the evidence was enough so they are not allowed to deny a hearing!
one of the things I am reading is that Texas sent the case early to get a response if more evidence is needed for it to be heard, the response given is that the case will not be denied a hearing.
they are waiting for harm to happen, which only will once the federal election occurs, so relief can be given after electoral votes are cast.
There's a lot of talk about "standing". It just means the aggrieved (eg the injured ) party is the one to bring the lawsuit. Who has been damaged by the wacky election?
People who voted in the traditional way
People who voted in the nu Democrat way
People who wanted to to vote but couldn't
How were they damaged?
Vote was not counted
Vote was canceled
Voter was disenfranchised in some other way
What is the relief? Reinstating the old rules? Nullification? A new election? This suit just want the Electoral College sidestepped which is an unrealistic demand given that it's mandated by the Constitution and there's a remedy for that right inside the Constitution as well.
imo the lawsuits should have been brought by individuals and the suit certified as a class action. Perhaps the states could have joined as plaintiffs. The courts dismissed a lot of these without hearing them, which does happen in often in litigation and this is why you attack the issue by bring different actions. I think time is also an issue as these should have commenced the minute the states changed the election rules.
On this level the research that goes into crafting a memorandum of points and authorities can be intense because you not only have to prepare to argue your position and back it up with case law but you also have to anticipate the opposing side and knock down their arguments, using case law as well. Case law is everything in the Federal courts since 1776, could be issues that sprang up while we were still a colony, maybe some state law as well and even British common. law. Then you'd also have to know your Justices and how to appeal to one or several based on their judicial philosophy and rulings.
It's not for the low IQ. No computer or software program is powerful or sentient enough to replicate what a great attorney experienced in writing and arguing cases before SCOTUS could do. It's a very specialized area of US law and lawyers who practice in this arena have an army of associates/junior partners as well as clerks and interns doing the research or they're professors at a top tier law school with the best students researching and writing.
In other words the dismissal and its dissent, while not unusual, was to be expected.
es-es.facebook.com
