How to get standing - SCOTUS tosses TX case - USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[Zenaan Harkness]

Bit embarrassing for sure.

Given there are SO many court cases that have been filed, and the incredibly tight time frames involved, is is all but certain a lot of people (think, junior lawyers) have been involved, so who knows who actually drafted these particular relevant documents.

That does not take away from the embarrassment we might feel for them though.

In the "citizen done cases" world (not uncommon in relation to human rights matters I'm familiar with), re-filing and re-writing documents is of course extremely common (we are not lawyers).

Also, given the incredibly tight schedules for all this Trump stuff (remember that Monday's electoral college vote is stipulated in the constitution iself, along with most other key federal election dates) the time that say someone like Giuliani would normally spend even finding a lawyer sufficiently expert in "constitutional law" and "kicking around the can on this particular case" may have been almost non-existent.

We humans have the unfortunate habit (self all too guilty) of putting certain others on "pedestals of perfection", which is entirely unfair!  They are human too, with the usual needs to for example "actually talk through the issues one by one, with a suitable listener (!) in order to get clear, handle all the issues, etc" -- this, of course, takes the time that it takes, especially on literally obscure corners of constitutional law: it's not like inter-state presidential SCOTUS election challenges are an everyday occurrence ("intern! grab me an inter-state SCOTUS original jurisdiction presidential elections challenge lawyer EXPERT on the phone, oh and I need them in about 20 minutes tops - on the double now, don't dilly dally!").

And then imagine you just received your SCOTUS rejection, it's late Friday afternoon, the electoral college meets Monday morning, and you've got about ONE HOUR to prepare and file a state supreme court challenge, which hopefully this time has standing!

I've personally been in such situations in the citizens human rights challenges scene - and WE ain't lawyers. It's not pretty, it's highly stressful, and failure is expected.

But you push through anyway because that's the right thing to do.  This is street fight territory - you don't have the luxury to even read much (or sometimes anything) in the way of "past legal precedents" let alone do 6 reviews of your originating motions and then still have abundant time to run it past your colleagues.  The ultimate leveller is the doing of it - so as we say when we're up against the wall to the arm chair experts: feel free to do better.  But you'd have to actually get in the damn ring to know what that means.


All we can do is what we can do, as individual humans.

Lawyers are not superhuman walkin encyclopaedias who can expand time by snapping their Matrix fingers - it may sound strange, but they too are individual humans with at least certain of the same limitations we each have.



When we put a lawyer on a pedestal, when we put a woman or a man, partner or parent or child on that pedestal, we are being fundamentally unfair to them.

Treat each event for what it is, and let's have gratitude for the fighters we have, the achievements folks achieve, and let's cut a little slack for the "failures" for those who dared step on the battlefield.



Here's Rudy Giuliani on the SCOTUS rejection on standing:

   "Not Finished": Rudy Giuliani Speaks Out After Supreme Court Shuts Down Case
   https://trendingpolitics.com/not-finished-rudy-giuliani-speaks-out-after-supreme-court-shuts-down-case/

      During an interview with Newsmax TV on Friday, President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani reacted to the Supreme Court's decision to deny Texas' lawsuit against key swing states.

      “The case wasn’t rejected on the merits, the case was rejected on standing," Giuliani said. "So the answer to that is to bring the case now to the district court by the president, by some of the electors, alleging some of the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.”

      Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield said, “Mr. Mayor, I know you talked to the president just after this ruling came down. What’s his reaction, and how’s he doing through all this.”

      Giuliani replied, “The president’s reaction is to look at other options. I mean, we always knew that this was an option, that we would have to convert this into — in fact, originally, we thought about this as possibly four or five separate cases. So that is the option we are going to have to go to. There’s nothing that prevents us from filing these cases immediately in the district court in which the president, of course, would have standing, some of the electors would have standing in that their constitutional rights have been violated.”

      He continued, “We’re not finished. Believe me.”

      WATCH:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7aOcVU0LBY

      Attorney Sidney Powell is also doubling down after the Supreme Court's decision. On Friday evening, Powell announced that she was making emergency filings in the states of Georgia, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin.

      The announcement from Powell came just hours after the Supreme Court shot down Texas's lawsuit where they attempted to block the certification of the 2020 election results.

      "Pay attention!" Powell tweeted. "We made emergency filings in #SupremeCourt tonight for #Georgia & #Michigan. Will be filing #Arizona #Wisconsin shortly. These cases raise constitutional issues and prove massive #fraud. Our plaintiffs have #standing #WeThePeople will not allow #rigged elections."

      At the same time as Powell, President Trump's team simultaneously filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in Georgia.

      ...



On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:32:10PM +0000, Steven Schear wrote:
> So let me get this straight. These so-called high powered lawyers
> mis-estimated whether SCOTUS would assume Texas has standing (standing is
> the first basic test to determine in a U.S. court if a plaintiff is
> qualified to bring a suit). Give me a break! Only 2nd or 3rd string
> constitutional lawyers could make this error.
> 
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 7:36 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 06:17:23PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > >    Citing a lack of standing, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a brief
> > order that the state "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest
> > in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," adding "All
> > other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
> > >
> > >    Supreme Court Tosses Texas Bid To Overturn Election
> > >
> > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-tosses-texas-bid-overturn-election
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, citizens of the swing states have standing, so they can file.
> > >
> > > Trumpers, both legal eagles and folks in their personal capacity, in the
> > 4 swing states (GA, PA, WI, MI?) need to file this case from their home
> > turf, as their interest is surely direct and personal - effected personally.
> > >
> > > I guess this is new territory for some folks...
> >
> >
> > Once parties with sufficient standing ARE properly filed and listed, the
> > Amicus Curiae 19 states can still join in support.
> >
> > Just need lots of folks WITH standing in the 4 swing states at issue -
> > this is what SCOTUS implied "insufficient standing", i.e. we need folks who
> > DO have standing!
> >
> > Voters in GA, PA, MI, WI, each DO have direct standing.  Folks from EACH
> > of these 4 states must now file, in order to solve this technicality of
> > "insufficient standing".
> >
> > Good luck from Aus!
> >