Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Question for Those with Legal Minds
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 4016246" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>That really doesn't clarify beyond 'i disagree with what the court said'</p><p></p><p>Apply the logic in your comment, if we removed standing then a person in California would be able to sue a gun maker because of a shooting in Tennessee, etc that had no direct impact on the person in CA. If the court applied your logic to standing then anyone, anywhere, could sue to overturn any election, anywhere, because of some implied trickle down impact on them.</p><p></p><p>Just because something (like a national election) can have an impact on you as a person, the underlying issue (say the Georgia recount) doesn't impact you if you weren't a Georgia voter. The legal question was how the process affected the votes cast in that state. The subsequent impact, while broader, wasn't the primary concern for the court (and, as it turned out, was only a piece of the overall puzzle and by itself wouldn't have changed anything, IIRC).</p><p></p><p>But in this case it's all moot as it applies to AOC since the picture with the wrong hand wasn't the actual swearing in anyway</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 4016246, member: 277"] That really doesn't clarify beyond 'i disagree with what the court said' Apply the logic in your comment, if we removed standing then a person in California would be able to sue a gun maker because of a shooting in Tennessee, etc that had no direct impact on the person in CA. If the court applied your logic to standing then anyone, anywhere, could sue to overturn any election, anywhere, because of some implied trickle down impact on them. Just because something (like a national election) can have an impact on you as a person, the underlying issue (say the Georgia recount) doesn't impact you if you weren't a Georgia voter. The legal question was how the process affected the votes cast in that state. The subsequent impact, while broader, wasn't the primary concern for the court (and, as it turned out, was only a piece of the overall puzzle and by itself wouldn't have changed anything, IIRC). But in this case it's all moot as it applies to AOC since the picture with the wrong hand wasn't the actual swearing in anyway [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Question for Those with Legal Minds
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom