108 Standing an Excuse to be Lazy
Descriptions > Other backgrounds
108 Standing, an Excuse to be Lazy
![](images/108-Standing-an-excuse-to-be-lazy-inet2_uhfzu0g4.jpg)
108 Standing, an Excuse to be Lazy
Before
and after the 2020 election various plaintiffs were bring cases to
court trying to argue that the various incidents of procedure change
and questionable counting items were hurting them. Numerous times the
court used this statement that the plaintiffs did not have “standing”
to bring the case.
So just
what is standing? Wikipedia summarizes “In the United States, the
current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging
the constitutionality of
a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently"
be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the
plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will
dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of
unconstitutionality.”
So,
even though people saw weird things happening during counting and
wanted these perpetrators to say under oath what the were doing, the
courts said that you have not proven you will be injured.
Translating to English, you are caught red handed stealing but the
court feels you are not injured, you have no standing and the case
gets thrown out.
After
the 2020 election all plaintiffs bring charged to the court knew
there cases saying that injuries had not happened and you are not
damaged but we cannot speculate that you would be damaged. Then a
case seems to have standing only to be told that some obscure element
is would prevent the court from being accessed.
Standing,
the excuse used when the courts do not want to do their job.
The
latest one is the a case submitted to the Supreme Court by a group of
conservative states against the Biden administration claiming the
Federal Government threatening social media platforms with negative
actions if they did not effectively stifle postings that were against
the government narrative. This was prevalent by the Corpse
administration, the CDC, FDA, Fauci and Birx. It does not matter
that this government interference is a first amendment violation. The
supreme court said no one proved they were hurt so they weren't going
to take the case. They did not have standing!
https://editorialpinups.com/099-hiding.html
Wait!
How can you say no one was hurt? Besides, is not the Supreme Court
supposed to determine constitutionality of laws made by Congress and
actions of the Executive Branch in enforcing said laws?This whole
standing thing. How and why does it exist?
It is
claimed that standing is defined in Article III of the Constitution.
Say what? Here is Article III Section 2 of the constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to
all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to
Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to
Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and
Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different
States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court
shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make.
It
states controversies. Nowhere does it state damages. Some
controversies are because of damages. Others are controversies are
top cover future damages. Is not damage to the constitution and/or
one of the amendments enough for the courts to hear a case?
This
whole thing of standing is a crap line made up by lawyers to be lazy
and derelict in their jobs. Just think if courts honestly heard all
of the disputes after the 2020 elections. A difference would have
occurred. January 6 may never have happened, along with the Russia
Ukraine war, Hamas attacking Israel, the little rocket man not
lobbing bombs, Iran not funding terrorists. If these things were
heard and not buried in standing, the corpse most likely would not
have been named president on that election result, but a different
process would have occurred.
Now the
supreme court is being derelict with the speech issue on regarding
not looking at the government compelling social media companies to
ban postings that are contrary to the governments position. Clear
first amendment violation. The virus response had this pressure by
government to shut down opinion different from theirs, and now we
found out how wrong the government was.
Standing,
courtroom censorship for the laziness of the courts! Standing is not
in the constitution. You don’t have to be a lawyer to read what is
not there!