No Standing

(The view point expressed below is born of 35 years of front-line litigation in the nation’s criminal courts. Specifically, 5 years as a USAF JAG Officer defending Courts-Martial, 6 years in a District Attorney’s Office in Rochester, NY and 25 years as a federal prosecutor in Raleigh, NC.) “Standing” refers to the requirement that a would-be litigant must demonstrate before he or she is permitted to file a lawsuit. Properly used it is an entirely legitimate screening process intended to shield the courts from being inundated with meddlesome, essentially pointless litigation. A concrete example might be as follows: my neighbor on one side punches my neighbor on the other side. I am quite friendly with the victim and find the perpetrator an arrogant #. The victim gets an apology from the aggressor and they settle the dispute. I believe the aggressor needs much more punishment to deter future assaults. Can I file a civil suit? No. I have no standing. I was not injured and have no loss to vindicate. It is the victim’s option alone. Note that I might well bring the matter to the attention of local criminal courts in hopes of the state/county/municipality might find it worthwhile to bring criminal charges against the aggressor. However, if this happens I am only a witness not a litigant and have no control over the litigation.

The consent of the individual states making up our union was based on their reliance on the United States Constitution

In the Texas lawsuit, Texas, supported by some 17 or 18 other states, filed a suit against the battleground states essentially claiming that the battleground states violated the core standards set out in the United States Constitution for the conduct of elections. The suit alleged they did this by brazenly ignoring their own laws established by the their own legislatures as to how elections are to be conducted. That is, the various Secretaries of State, Governors and courts simply ignored their own laws and took it upon themselves to significantly restructure the conduct of the election. They extended the dates “mail-in ballots” could be received, ignored the requirements for supervising the counting of the ballots by deliberately excluding poll watchers, did away with the requirement for signature verification, permitted ballots to be “cured”, permitted large numbers of ballots by the deceased, surreptitiously trucked in large quantities of newly minted ballots from elsewhere in the middle of the night, inexplicably shut down the counting nearly in unison apparently to assess how many more ballots were needed to achieve the designated result, held some voting districts to the letter of the law (read the Republican areas) while allowing the urban areas (read Democratic area) to degenerate into partisan chaos, etc., etc. All of this was neither incidental nor inconsequential. In each of the states the number of apparently unlawful ballots far exceeded the vote differential between the presidential candidates. Why is it Texas’ business if the battleground states allowed and subsequently aggressively defended their “right” to conduct their own elections any way they wished —lawful or not? The reason it is the business of the non-battleground states arises from the fact that we have a constitutional republic. It has been functioning for more than 200 years. The consent of the individual states making up our union was based on their reliance on the United States Constitution. Fundamental to the consent of the states is the presumption that each state is bound by and governed by the shared constitution. The constitution specifies that the state legislatures establish the rules by which elections are conducted. There is no provision in the constitution allowing the states to, in effect, essentially contract out their elections to corrupt urban political machines, or worse, completely partisan inter-state political entities. In common language, that may well prove to be a “deal breaker”.

---

Why should Texas give ongoing consent to abide by federal elections dominated by lawless, corrupt urban political machines or worse?

Why should Texas give ongoing consent to abide by federal elections dominated by lawless, corrupt urban political machines or worse? Why would any state wish to be in a partnership with what appear to be corrupt partners? How is such an alliance “just” to the citizens of the states which strive to conduct their elections in a lawful, orderly manner? The lawful, orderly conduct of elections is why other states can have confidence that the issues of the day will have a fair hearing throughout the nation and the vote will reflect “we the people”s considered judgment. Without lawful, orderly elections we inevitably degenerate into mob rule—which has been playing out on our TV screens all year. It has to be remembered that this suit by Texas, because it is one state suing others, is a matter of “original jurisdiction” for SCOTUS. What does that mean? It means, unlike virtually every other sort of litigation which comes before it, it did not come through the state courts or the various federal circuit courts. In such a matter SCOTUS is entitled to conduct itself just as one of the federal trial courts would. It could have required more briefing, if it felt that the evidence of the alleged fraud or violations of state law needed to be fleshed out more, it could have set aside whatever time was required for an evidentiary hearing. In short, it could have marshaled whatever it believed was necessary to make an informed decision. Once that process was complete it could have fashioned whatever remedy it felt appropriate. There is no appeal from a SCOTUS ruling. They well knew that the matter was of intense interest to the entire nation. They also knew that large portions of the entire population believed the election had been badly tainted. The bizarre, synchronized stoppage of the counting process by the battleground states effectively happened before the nation’s eyes. When the counting resumed, the nation also observed, essentially first hand, that the large margins of victory President Trump held before the counting stoppage, had mysteriously evaporated.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

The statute of Lady Justice holds both a scale and a sword. Justice cannot long survive without either

The SCOTUS membership are all highly intelligent professionals. It is wholly unbelievable that any of them were blind or unaware of the reach and importance of the issue they were confronted with. It appears they prized the goal of shielding the court from political criticism above safe-guarding the survival of the union. The statute of Lady Justice holds both a scale and a sword. Justice cannot long survive without either. SCOTUS decided to toss the scales in the bin and blind itself to the need for the sword. As a result, we the people are forced to either surrender our electoral system to the mob or fight it out in the street. “No standing” might be more accurately transcribed as “No courage”