Does Anyone here understand the judicial expression, "on the merits"?

[DGS49]

The Trump team has had dozens of losses in court since the election, and even a few Leftist judges who used the occasion to slander the lawyers and other supporters of the case.

But essentially none of these court cases (including today's USSC case) has been decided, "on the merits." It is a legal expression but not terribly difficult to understand. When you go to court with a case, you present a factual and legal basis for some sort of satisfaction or relief. But often, the court will find some reason to rule on the case that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. The Court says, "You don't have a right to sue here" (lack of "standing"), or the case isn't ripe yet.

In today's Texas case, the Supreme Court said that Texas lacked legal standing to bring the case, because it disagreed with the assertion that Texas had been harmed by the actions of the four offending states. So...

• They did not rule on whether the states had violated the Constitution by illegally modifying their election laws,
• They did not rule on whether the votes in question were compromised or invalid,
• They did not rule on any of the factual claims (which were numerous).

So to prance around this forum gleefully claiming that the Trump team was totally repudiated is simply wrong. And the same is true of almost all of the other cases where the Trump team has lost. NO COURT has looked at the shenanigans in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., to evaluate whether the actions of Democrat operatives were illegal. It simply has not been addressed by any Court having jurisdiction.

And that may always be the case. The Democrats gamed the system successfully, facilitating a massive fraud that leaves almost no evidence and no remedy.

But it will come out.

 

[candycorn]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/729fc07335063f9d8a23002a71fdb0a8/tenor.gif?itemid=5447899

He lost in state court, federal court, appellate court and now the supreme court.

Define repudiation.

 

[fncceo]

"On the merits" means to decide a case based on the evidence presented and not on procedural grounds.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Does Anyone here understand the judicial expression, "on the merits"?’

Yes.

And the Texas case – as with all of the other cases – was devoid of merit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Trump team has had dozens of losses in court since the election, and even a few Leftist judges who used the occasion to slander the lawyers and other supporters of the case.

But essentially none of these court cases (including today's USSC case) has been decided, "on the merits." It is a legal expression but not terribly difficult to understand. When you go to court with a case, you present a factual and legal basis for some sort of satisfaction or relief. But often, the court will find some reason to rule on the case that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. The Court says, "You don't have a right to sue here" (lack of "standing"), or the case isn't ripe yet.

In today's Texas case, the Supreme Court said that Texas lacked legal standing to bring the case, because it disagreed with the assertion that Texas had been harmed by the actions of the four offending states. So...

• They did not rule on whether the states had violated the Constitution by illegally modifying their election laws,
• They did not rule on whether the votes in question were compromised or invalid,
• They did not rule on any of the factual claims (which were numerous).

So to prance around this forum gleefully claiming that the Trump team was totally repudiated is simply wrong. And the same is true of almost all of the other cases where the Trump team has lost. NO COURT has looked at the shenanigans in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., to evaluate whether the actions of Democrat operatives were illegal. It simply has not been addressed by any Court having jurisdiction.

And that may always be the case. The Democrats gamed the system successfully, facilitating a massive fraud that leaves almost no evidence and no remedy.

But it will come out.

 

[Moonglow]

The Trump team has had dozens of losses in court since the election, and even a few Leftist judges who used the occasion to slander the lawyers and other supporters of the case.

But essentially none of these court cases (including today's USSC case) has been decided, "on the merits." It is a legal expression but not terribly difficult to understand. When you go to court with a case, you present a factual and legal basis for some sort of satisfaction or relief. But often, the court will find some reason to rule on the case that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. The Court says, "You don't have a right to sue here" (lack of "standing"), or the case isn't ripe yet.

In today's Texas case, the Supreme Court said that Texas lacked legal standing to bring the case, because it disagreed with the assertion that Texas had been harmed by the actions of the four offending states. So...

• They did not rule on whether the states had violated the Constitution by illegally modifying their election laws,
• They did not rule on whether the votes in question were compromised or invalid,
• They did not rule on any of the factual claims (which were numerous).

So to prance around this forum gleefully claiming that the Trump team was totally repudiated is simply wrong. And the same is true of almost all of the other cases where the Trump team has lost. NO COURT has looked at the shenanigans in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., to evaluate whether the actions of Democrat operatives were illegal. It simply has not been addressed by any Court having jurisdiction.

And that may always be the case. The Democrats gamed the system successfully, facilitating a massive fraud that leaves almost no evidence and no remedy.

But it will come out.

The Constitution does not control how's state runs an election.

 

[L.K.Eder]

The Trump team has had dozens of losses in court since the election, and even a few Leftist judges who used the occasion to slander the lawyers and other supporters of the case.

But essentially none of these court cases (including today's USSC case) has been decided, "on the merits." It is a legal expression but not terribly difficult to understand. When you go to court with a case, you present a factual and legal basis for some sort of satisfaction or relief. But often, the court will find some reason to rule on the case that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. The Court says, "You don't have a right to sue here" (lack of "standing"), or the case isn't ripe yet.

In today's Texas case, the Supreme Court said that Texas lacked legal standing to bring the case, because it disagreed with the assertion that Texas had been harmed by the actions of the four offending states. So...

• They did not rule on whether the states had violated the Constitution by illegally modifying their election laws,
• They did not rule on whether the votes in question were compromised or invalid,
• They did not rule on any of the factual claims (which were numerous).

So to prance around this forum gleefully claiming that the Trump team was totally repudiated is simply wrong. And the same is true of almost all of the other cases where the Trump team has lost. NO COURT has looked at the shenanigans in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., to evaluate whether the actions of Democrat operatives were illegal. It simply has not been addressed by any Court having jurisdiction.

And that may always be the case. The Democrats gamed the system successfully, facilitating a massive fraud that leaves almost no evidence and no remedy.

But it will come out.

lol. can't even clear the first hurdle, but fantasizes about winning the race. grow up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“They did not rule on whether the states had violated the Constitution by illegally modifying their election laws…”

That’s because the issue is the sole purview of the state courts.

“They did not rule on whether the votes in question were compromised or invalid…”

That’s because there’s no evidence of votes being compromised or invalid.

And even if there were evidence, again, that would be a matter for the respective state courts.

“They did not rule on any of the factual claims (which were numerous).”

Facts can’t exist absent evidence; and yet again: that would be an issue for state courts, not the Federal courts.

 

[daveman]

‘Does Anyone here understand the judicial expression, "on the merits"?’

Yes.

And the Texas case – as with all of the other cases – was devoid of merit.

You'd think the Court would have said that, then.

They didn't.

 

[ReinyDays]

The Trump team has had dozens of losses in court since the election, and even a few Leftist judges who used the occasion to slander the lawyers and other supporters of the case.

But essentially none of these court cases (including today's USSC case) has been decided, "on the merits." It is a legal expression but not terribly difficult to understand. When you go to court with a case, you present a factual and legal basis for some sort of satisfaction or relief. But often, the court will find some reason to rule on the case that DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT. The Court says, "You don't have a right to sue here" (lack of "standing"), or the case isn't ripe yet.

In today's Texas case, the Supreme Court said that Texas lacked legal standing to bring the case, because it disagreed with the assertion that Texas had been harmed by the actions of the four offending states. So...

• They did not rule on whether the states had violated the Constitution by illegally modifying their election laws,
• They did not rule on whether the votes in question were compromised or invalid,
• They did not rule on any of the factual claims (which were numerous).

So to prance around this forum gleefully claiming that the Trump team was totally repudiated is simply wrong. And the same is true of almost all of the other cases where the Trump team has lost. NO COURT has looked at the shenanigans in Wisconsin, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, etc., to evaluate whether the actions of Democrat operatives were illegal. It simply has not been addressed by any Court having jurisdiction.

And that may always be the case. The Democrats gamed the system successfully, facilitating a massive fraud that leaves almost no evidence and no remedy.

But it will come out.

Before this thread spins out of control ... today's SCOTUS ruling only effect immediate action by the court ... the complaint can still be filed with the court and it will be docketed in line with the rest of the cases pending ... meaning all EV's will meet on Monday to vote for President ... Quid Pro Joe ...

The reasoning is that since SCOTUS is the only place this case can be filed, then SCOTUS must accept it ... but all immediate relief ask for is outside Article III ..

 

[Gdjjr]

I just ran across this from another comments message board- non-political - then some commenters made political- you can guess their leaning- the guy isn't a Trump fan either- FYI- and he didn't initiate the political aspect-

HERE IS THE EVIDENCE


Due to the irregularity of this current 2020 Presidential Election, this is a crowdsourcing tool for organizing anomalies and legal issues. Our desire is that more of the election process would be made transparent so there would be unquestionable confidence in our voting systems.

This is for aggregating publicly available items of evidence that would be admissible in court, not general election news stories or updates.


1,218,281
Ballots Touched By Anomalies


923

Fact Witnesses



31+

Courts Blocked An Evidentiary Hearing


It also shows a history of voting "manners"-

 

[EvilCat Breath]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/729fc07335063f9d8a23002a71fdb0a8/tenor.gif?itemid=5447899

He lost in state court, federal court, appellate court and now the supreme court.

Define repudiation.

No court has found against him.

 

[candycorn]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/729fc07335063f9d8a23002a71fdb0a8/tenor.gif?itemid=5447899

He lost in state court, federal court, appellate court and now the supreme court.

Define repudiation.

No court has found against him.

 

[Lysistrata]

I doubt that Texas would have won on the merits, even if it actually could have established standing.

One thing that I have noticed in these four years of trump rule even before the Nov. election, is that republicans seem allergic to coming out and explaining their actions in front of the public, in general, and particularly in circumstances in which they would be required to take an oath under penalty of perjury. Instead of standing before the mics and explaining their actions and positions on a whole host of issues, they just run out the back door and dive for the car. They also have withheld documents that members of Congress have a right to see. Given this state of affairs, I will never vote for a republican.

Transparency is essential in our democracy.

 

[justinacolmena]

Telling code-phrases of judicial-speak on the left.

(lack of "standing")

Plaintiff is probably male, either impotent or in a wheelchair or using a cane or walker. The judge is smacking him down for daring to trespass on the property of the court without a healthy gait and posture.

the case isn't ripe yet.

Plaintiff is (allegedly) a lesbian or mannish woman, and the judge is thumping a Bible on the apples of Sodom that never ripen, as a girl's breasts that never develop.

DEUTERONOMY 32:32 KJV For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall,...

Deuteronomy 32:32 KJV: For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I doubt that Texas would have won on the merits, even if it actually could have established standing.

One thing that I have noticed in these four years of trump rule even before the Nov. election, is that republicans seem allergic to coming out and explaining their actions in front of the public, in general, and particularly in circumstances in which they would be required to take an oath under penalty of perjury. Instead of standing before the mics and explaining their actions and positions on a whole host of issues, they just run out the back door and dive for the car. They also have withheld documents that members of Congress have a right to see. Given this state of affairs, I will never vote for a republican.

Transparency is essential in our democracy.

You would if the Republican Plank were to be reinstated from the days of Yesterday before the Dem and the Reps went completely insane.

Republican Party Platform
This was what Lincoln, Teddy R and Nixon operated under. Reagan somewhat operated that way as well. But since then, the Reps have gone bat shit crazy. This is from 1956.

Democratic Party Platform
On the flip side, before the Democratic Party went completely ape shit, here is the 1952 Democratic Party Platform under Truman. For you Dems, it's well worth the read.

You will notice that there really wasn't that big a difference between Truman's Dems and Eisenhowers Reps. One was left of center and the other was right of center by today's standards. But both parties believed that they were completely different. One thing should be noted that both Harry and Ike laid the foundation for almost everything we have today including the Space Race and our wonderful Transportation and trade. And they created Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. The Housing built under those two dwarfs anything we have had since.

This is where we should be today for both parties instead of the bat shit crazy and ape shit where we are.

 

[Gdjjr]

I recall, several years ago, in Texas, the Democrats were extremely transparent- so much so that when a particular item came to the floor for debate/vote, they vacated to Oklahoma-

 

[daveman]

I recall, several years ago, in Texas, the Democrats were extremely transparent- so much so that when a particular item came to the floor for debate/vote, they vacated to Oklahoma-

And: "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

 

[foggedinn]

Someone has to have standing to bring a case before the court before a case can be decided on it's merits. Who has standing to bring a case before the court is a more interesting question.

 

[Gdjjr]

Someone has to have standing to bring a case before the court before a case can be decided on it's merits. Who has standing to bring a case before the court is a more interesting question.

STUPID IS AS STUPID RULES.
I know not what course others may choose, or be forced to endure, but the courts seem no longer an option.

Ah, but were they ever? American courts, from the lowliest traffic one to the Supremes, have been utterly corrupt for decades if not centuries.

The Sun Over Texas