About Me

Name: Pick3master3838

View my complete profile

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

This is for people who don't understand why Trump's court cases weren't taken into consideration

"Not in good standing" is misunderstood, so here's why trump's cases weren't taken. Your case has to have a leg to stand on before a judge will even consider looking at it. You have to show damage and other findings.

Below is from a law firm:

3 Elements of Standing to Sue

When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as “locus standi,” in other words, “standing to sue.” Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.

 

What are the three elements of standing to sue? In the legal world, “element” is another word for a factor that the party must prove as part of a broader legal concept. In terms of standing, a party must prove three elements.

 

Injury in fact Injury in fact means that a person has suffered an actual injury. This can be a physical injury or economic loss, the two most common types of injuries. However, this element can also include harm that is caused to conservation, aesthetic, or recreational interests as well. Importantly, in most cases, the injury must already have occurred, rather than being something hypothetical that might happen in the future. Causation Causation means that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the person or party that is being sued. In other words, the party bringing the lawsuit needs to show that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, they would not have been injured. If the plaintiff cannot prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, they will not be able to prove that they have standing to bring the lawsuit. Redressability Finally, redressability means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines that would have a deterrent effect. It’s important to remember that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States, and courts can only order parties to take certain actions, so there is a limit on whether a court’s order can “redress” the injury the plaintiff has suffered. When interpreting these standards, courts have also added other rules, often called “prudential standing,” to help them consistently apply standing law. These rules include limits on when taxpayers can sue for grievances that affect the general public, and the requirement that the injury be within the “zone of interest” a statute is intended to cover, among many others. Why do courts require standing for a lawsuit to proceed? At the most basic level, courts require standing because the Constitution requires them to enforce the law. However there are many policy reasons that courts require legal standing. Because of the requirement that federal courts only hear actual “cases or controversies,” these requirements prevent courts from litigating abstract political questions that have public significance, but have not actually yet harmed anyone. This means that courts can use their time and efforts only on those cases where they can have an actual impact. Resource: The FREE Act (c/o Tara Melancon) Data Breaches Standing to sue can be a difficult concept to prove, especially in cases dealing with identity theft or environmental harm. More recently, people who have had their personal information exposed through a data breach have run into standing problems when they are not able to show that they have been injured yet, but there is the possibility of “future injury” if their data is misused down the road. Environmental Lawsuits Similarly, parties seeking to bring environmental lawsuits may have trouble proving that the defendant’s conduct caused the harm, especially on more controversial topics such as global warming. There is also the requirement that the party suing actually be the party who was harmed, because courts will not allow “third party standing,” which is suing on someone else’s behalf, unless that person has legally assigned their right to sue or in other limited circumstances. Standing to sue is a complex legal topic that has many nuances. If you have questions about legal standing or the required elements, it’s best to contact an attorney who is experienced in that area.

posted by Pick3master3838 | 2:16 PM

9 Comments:

lakerben said...

Yes sir!

4:57 PM
Stack47 said...

Read where Orly Taitz the dentist/political conspiracy theorist/former real estate agent/lawyer filed a "harm to be named later" lawsuit against Kamala Harris and Chuck Schumer. Her argument is similar to the thousands of non-existing jobs being lost because permits for the Keystone Pipeline were revoked.

Taltz is claiming by barring someone from running for a political office harms her right to vote for them. I suppose because Trump didn't run for the Palm Beach, Florida dog catcher harmed her right to for him too.

8:19 PM
lakerben said...

The people who worked on the pipeline just have to go to the union hall and sign the books and go to another job. Been there done that.

11:05 PM
grwurston said...

Why is standing an important criterion for the Supreme Court? It allows the Supreme Court to duck hearing politically sensitive cases by ruling that the plaintiff does not have standing.
Sounds like a copout...

4:01 AM
noise-gate said...

Not everything is conspiratorial G. You have the SCOTUS judges who swore to uphold the Constitution. They were not placed there as Trump assumed to � align their decisions � with Trump�s. The rush to put Amy on the Supreme Court was Don�s thinking, in fact a conservative here in the Bay Area said that despite what was going on � Trump�s appointees to the bench � would DO the RIGHT thing, and what was that supposed to mean- Bend the rules?
Trump & his supporters forget one thing, there would come a time when he was no longer President, thing is: That time is now. It came sooner than he and his followers expected, but as the old saying goes� it is what it is.�

2:16 PM
Stack47 said...

Gr, if you're asking about legal standing, why not do a simple search that took me only about two seconds to get the definitive answer.

This �irreducible constitutional minimum� of standing has three elements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury; (2) that injury is fairly traceable to actions of the defendant; and (3) it must be likely�not merely speculative�that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."

Lawyers like Sidney Powell, Orly Taitz, and Lin Wood try to test the legal standing limits and courts have admonished them and occasionally fine them for wasting the court's time debating the legal standing rules.

Had to chuckle at "ducking politically sensitive cases" because again it's lack of understanding of the function of the U.S. Supreme Court. The word "political" is not in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

5:41 PM
Stack47 said...

N-G, Had Amy Barrett been Trump's choice instead of Brett Kavanaugh, she would easily be confirmed by the Senate, but the rush to get another Conservative on the Court made it difficult. For years Constitutional scholars will be debating why Trump and some Republicans in the Senate thought the Supreme Court had the authority to overturn several state elections in Trump's favor with no proof and no substantial evidence. Or worse believing three Justices would rule in Trump's favor because he appointed them.

5:53 PM
noise-gate said...

Then l see in a blog l am blocked from commenting in showing � crowd size� as a legitimate reference to who Won the election. Well hello, just because The Rolling Stones can get 40,000 people into a stadium doesn�t mean they the best band around.
After all wasn�t it Trump himself that said � don�t mail in your ballots?� For a President that never yawned in public, that was foolish advice. I was waiting for Georgian Republicans to conduct a test of the Dominion machines to see whether Ossoff & Wanock were the True winners.
I am still waiting..

10:24 AM
Stack47 said...

Their Emperor with no clothes is no longer posting on Twitter so the excuses and misdirection attempts are really getting lame. Some of the Trump supporters wanted to hang Mike Pence and Liz Cheney, but to counter they change the subject to say "it's only a small number of the supporters" and "BLM has bad people too". The idea is to make someone bite on the latter forgetting almost all the people inside the Capital Building broke the law.

Remember when Sean Spicer with a straight face and serious as a heart attack said there were more people at Trump's inauguration than any inauguration or Kelly Ann's "alternate facts? Bet lots of Republicans wanted to grab Trump's cell phone and throw it into the deepest place in the Potomac River.

12:30 AM

Post a Comment

<< Home