Definitions & background

Submitted by Doctor Weasel (United States), Apr 26, 2022 at 14:33

David, I stated above 'Many of the election-related lawsuits were stopped due to standing, and were never heard on the merits'. Perhaps you are not familiar with the US legal system. A court can reject a lawsuit over 'standing', which is the right to bring a suit. If a suit is rejected for lack of standing, the arguments, evidence, etc., are never heard by the court. If the court hears the case and makes a decision, that decision is made 'on the merits', meaning the arguments, evidence, etc. of the case. Again, Trump's lawsuits were decided on standing, not merits. For constitutional cases, who has standing may be an unresolved question, with no prior case law. Still, the position taken by many courts seems to be that nobody has standing. State suits have been rejected, individual suits including those by Trump and his allies have been rejected. It is very misleading to say 'Trump did, and was thrown out' considering that the evidence was not heard. It is definitely not the 'End of story'. Please look a little deeper.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".