On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 06:35:35PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness 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".
Notwithstanding that the electoral college "meets monday" to "elect a new president", we have: - SCOTUS, in its original jurisdiction, has power for pretty much any remedy, although whether it accepts this in a specific case is to be seen - faithless electors - martial law as a last resort, in the footsteps of Abe :D
