Supreme Court rules against vote rigging case WITHOUT EXPLANATION

[lennypartiv]

What gives here? Why can't they give an explanation? This is like a continuation of the cases from 2020 being thrown out.

---The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition from Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to hold a new case over their claims of vote rigging in the 2022 midterm elections without explanation, according to local media.---

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

What gives here? Why can't they give an explanation? This is like a continuation of the cases from 2020 being thrown out.

---The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition from Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to hold a new case over their claims of vote rigging in the 2022 midterm elections without explanation, according to local media.---

MSN

www.msn.com

Because they know the cases are total bullshit, but they don't want to make it look like the right are totally batshitcrazy... even though they are.

 

[pknopp]

It is like arguing that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time and presenting "The Flintstone's" as your new evidence.

 

[candycorn]

What gives here? Why can't they give an explanation? This is like a continuation of the cases from 2020 being thrown out.

---The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition from Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to hold a new case over their claims of vote rigging in the 2022 midterm elections without explanation, according to local media.---

MSN

www.msn.com

Time for you to start calling Trump’s appointees “deep state plants”.

 

[Muhammed]

What gives here? Why can't they give an explanation? This is like a continuation of the cases from 2020 being thrown out.

---The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition from Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to hold a new case over their claims of vote rigging in the 2022 midterm elections without explanation, according to local media.---

MSN

www.msn.com

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

As redress for their injury, Lake and Finchem are asking for a redo of the election. However the court simply does not have the power to do that because there is no law that says there can be a redo of the election.

Now if they simply sued for the salary they lost, they would have standing. The court can award them monetary damages as a redress for injury. The court cannot order a new election.

 

[justoffal]

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

As redress for their injury, Lake and Finchem are asking for a redo of the election. However the court simply does not have the power to that because there is no law that says there can be a redo of election.

Now if they simply sued for the salary they lost, they would have standing. The court can award them monetary damages as a redress for injury. The court cannot order a new election.

EXXXXXXACTLY

 

[Muhammed]

EXXXXXXACTLY

And even if the court could order a new election, there is no guarantee that either Lake or Finchem would win a redo election, therefore the redress that they are suing for is speculative. That violates the SCOTUS rules of standing.

 

[justoffal]

And even if the court could order a new election, there is no guarantee that either Lake or Finchem would win a redo election, therefore the redress that they are suing for is speculative. That violates the SCOTUS rules of standing.

Unless there is totally irrefutable evidence SCOTUS cannot become a full time election decider. It's not their job.

 

[rampart]

What gives here? Why can't they give an explanation? This is like a continuation of the cases from 2020 being thrown out.

---The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition from Arizona Republicans Kari Lake and Mark Finchem to hold a new case over their claims of vote rigging in the 2022 midterm elections without explanation, according to local media.---

MSN

www.msn.com

here is your reason, lenny

this case has no basis in fact or law. lake pissed off the powerful mccain faction and presented a message disconnected from reality.

counting on thomas and alito to win one you can't get from the voters shouldn't work.

i'm sure we shall see in november

 

[San Souci]

Unless there is totally irrefutable evidence SCOTUS cannot become a full time election decider. It's not their job.

True. So the Dems can go on being crooked with no penalty. I said all along ,the Repubs need to either play the Democrats Game or keep losing. Nixon played the Democrat game. He finally won twice. Of course ,it backfired.