Trump signals he’s out for revenge in second term

[cato potatoe]

Promising to persecute liberals will not convince them to stay away from the polls.  This guy is a turnout machine for the left, probably the best thing for their cause in decades.

[libertybele]

Promising to persecute liberals will not convince them to stay away from the polls.  This guy is a turnout machine for the left, probably the best thing for their cause in decades.

The more Trump threatens the liberals the more they will try to hang him.  He can't put things behind him and move on. That's not a good sign.

[LMAO]

Every tyrant in history believes their totalitarianism is justified for a greater cause. The left believe that the abuse they inflict on their opponents, especially Trump supporters, is justified to “save democracy”

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Every tyrant in history believes their totalitarianism is justified for a greater cause. The left believe that the abuse they inflict on their opponents, especially Trump supporters, is justified to “save democracy”

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There are apparently a lot of things you don't understand @Maj. Bill Martin beginning with what original jurisdiction means.

And BTW; it wasn't just Texas, half the states in this country joined Texas in the effort.

@Bigun

I'm pretty clear on what original jurisdiction means, and it has absolutely nothing to do with standing.  They are entirely unrelated legal concepts.

To put it simply, original jurisdiction pertains whether this is the proper court.  Standing has to do with whether or not you are a proper plaintiff in the action you are seeking to bring.  I can lay that out with more details and examples if you'd like.  But you can have standing if the court lacks jurisdiction, and the court can have jurisdiction but you lack standing.  You need both to proceed in a case in that court.

I didn't get my law degree from the Conservative Treehouse, but I do know at least that much.

[Hoodat]

Each State has a vested interest in seeing that the rules applied to them are also applied to every other State.  That makes Texas a proper plaintiff.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Each State has a vested interest in seeing that the rules applied to them are also applied to every other State.  That makes Texas a proper plaintiff.

No, it doesn't.  And the Supreme Court agreed.  Even the two justices who believed the Bill of Complaint should have been accepted would not have granted the requested relief.  The Bill of Complaint issue is related to the standing issue in the sense that it was the reason the Bill was rejected.  However, you could argue (as I believe Alito and Thomas implicitly did) that the Bill of Complaint should have been permitted, but the case then dismissed due to lack of standing.

I'd just point out that by your logic, other states should have been able to file lawsuits in federal court challenging the Bush v. Gore case in 1992.  And there really isn't even a reason it should be limited to states rather than to the citizens of all those states, because everyone has an interest in seeing laws enforced.

But that general interest in seeing laws enforced is never sufficient for standing.

[Hoodat]

No, it doesn't.  And the Supreme Court agreed.  Even the two justices who believed the Bill of Complaint should have been accepted would not have granted the requested relief.  The Bill of Complaint issue is related to the standing issue in the sense that it was the reason the Bill was rejected.  However, you could argue (as I believe Alito and Thomas implicitly did) that the Bill of Complaint should have been permitted, but the case then dismissed due to lack of standing. . .

I go by what the Constitution says, not by what the Supreme Court says.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

I'm pretty clear on what original jurisdiction means, and it has absolutely nothing to do with standing.  They are entirely unrelated legal concepts.

To put it simply, original jurisdiction pertains whether this is the proper court.  Standing has to do with whether or not you are a proper plaintiff in the action you are seeking to bring.  I can lay that out with more details and examples if you'd like.  But you can have standing if the court lacks jurisdiction, and the court can have jurisdiction but you lack standing.  You need both to proceed in a case in that court.

I didn't get my law degree from the Conservative Treehouse, but I do know at least that much.

OK. @Maj. Bill Martin

Any state which suffers injury due to violation(s) of the Constitution has standing! In this case It was Texas and at least twenty-four others!

 BTW: Can you cite a case, even one will do, in which standing was mentioned before the 1920's?

I'll wait.

[Hoodat]

BTW: Can you cite a case, even one will do, in which standing was mentioned before the 1920's?

John Jay wrote about it extensively in Federalist #666.  I'm sure of it.