Voter Fraud Lawsuits: Who Has Standing?

By Rich Kozlovich 

Yesterday, December 20, 2022, William Quinn Posted this piece, BREAKING: Georgia Supreme Court Reverses 'Lack Of Standing' In 2020 Election Case, saying:

It has been confirmed that today's Supreme Court order also applies to the case of Garland Favorito et al. v. Alex Wan et al.  as both cases were originally dismissed under the same premise...............the Georgia Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari, vacated the previous judgement and remanded the case of CAROLINE JEFFORDS et al. v. FULTON COUNTY et al.    The Court ordered that the lower Court of Appeals reconsider the case which was previously dismissed for lack of “standing.” ...........Lack of “standing” was cited in a number of cases brought forward as evidence of possible malfeasance mounted following the November 2020 election...............  Following the release of Dinesh DeSousa’s documentary “2000 Mules”, public awareness in Georgia and across the Country has broadened with renewed calls for election transparency and investigations.

Since the 2020 election I've seen courts use this "lack of standing" horsepucky over and over again,  including the Supreme Court.  In all these cases it's my view that rationale is not a reason, it's an excuse!  An excuse used as a justification for the courts failure to do their jobs, and the federal judiciary is the worst.  The federal judiciary is full of political hacks that spout insane rationalizations from the likes of Souter, Breyer, O'Conner, Kennedy, and currently Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and more times than I care to note, Chief Justice Roberts.  

• Texas: The Eyes of the World Are Upon You! 
• SCOTUS: The Eyes of Justice Were Upon You. And You Failed! 
• SCOTUS Has Failed. That Failure May Be An Opportunity

They find standing for every nitwit and misfit regarding ever social issue under the sun.  Issues for which they really have no jurisdictionissues that belong squarely in the realm of the legislature, not the judiciary.  In short, they've unconstitutionally created a system of judicial legislation, which all of a sudden leftist hypocrites are outraged about, claiming the courts is "accumulating power".  Imagine that!

 

So, one has to ask, if states don't have standing over issues regarding national election voter fraud, who does? As Justice Thomas (who I consider the finest Justice to sit on the Supreme Court in my lifetime)  noted:

Federal law does not, on its face, give this Court discretion to decline to decide cases within its original jurisdiction. Yet the Court has long exercised such discretion, and does so again today in denying, without explanation, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s motion for leave to file a complaint against Colorado. I would not dispose of the complaint so hastily. Because our discretionary approach to exercising our original jurisdiction is questionable, and because the plaintiff States have made a reasonable case that this dispute falls within our original and exclusive jurisdiction, I would grant the plaintiff States leave to file their complaint.

Justice Thomas went on to explain:

Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it. Nothing in §1251(a) suggests that the Court can opt to decline jurisdiction over such a controversy.........If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief.............. Because our discretionary approach appears to be at odds with the statutory text, it bears reconsideration. Moreover, the “reasons” we have given to support the discretionary approach are policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text specifying the Court’s original jurisdiction.

The question that needs answering is this: 

 

What remedy is there when SCOTUS decides it won't obey the Constitution?  So if states have no standing to sue other states, who does?  Well, it's quite simple, if states have no standing that means no one has standing. That set the pattern that's played out over and over again.  

 

The next question that needs answering is this: 

 

What remedy is there when the state courts decide they won't obey the Constitution? 

 

Well, it looks like some jurists have realized  how at so many levels just  how serious and corrupt this has been, and their refusal to act judiciously makes them part of the corruption.   At some point all these judges have a social life and, as in all professions, they're critiqued by their colleagues and peers.  

 

Furthermore, these judges are people, and when it's obvious to the most casual observer they've simply chose to ignore the law, and they're getting beat up over it.  Not physically, but worse.  People will always be people and when they're looked down on with scorn, or their friends and colleagues start to distance themselves from them, they start to see themselves and what they're doing in a different light.  At least that's what I believe is happening right now. 

 

I hope that's part of the answer, because if it is,  I expect to see more of this.