Do Republicans Ever Fight Back?

 

While Republicans were dithering around, trying to figure out if they could stop Biden’s Executive Order for canceling student loan debt, a creative Libertarian identified a way to stop the legislation. Especially valuable was that he identified that he had standing to sue, which was anticipated as a major roadblock to this kind of challenge.

The EO should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Biden first mentioned it during his campaign and then in March 2020. Apparently, no one took him seriously:

Conservative groups have been threatening to challenge debt cancellation since Biden first aired the idea, saying it’s legally questionable and unfairly cancels student debt at the expense of Americans who didn’t attend college. One of the main challenges has been finding someone who faces personal harm as a result of Biden’s plan, giving them legal standing to sue.

Some attorneys general finally decided they’d better discuss the possibility of Biden’s taking action, now that the applications for loan forgiveness will be given out at the beginning of October.

The person filing suit is Frank Garrison, who argues he will be harmed “due to quirks in the federal loan repayment plans and Indiana law.” Here’s more:

Mr. Garrison is enrolled in the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which limits his monthly payments to a share of his income and discharges the remaining debt after 10 years of payments. The President’s loan forgiveness will immediately cancel $20,000 in debt. But this won’t reduce his monthly payments since they are already capped.

However, it will require him to pay more than $1,000 in state tax on the canceled debt this year. Indiana doesn’t tax Public Service Loan Forgiveness, so he wouldn’t face a state tax liability several years from now. Thus, he won’t receive an ‘additional benefit from the cancellation—just a one-time additional penalty,’ according to his suit.

He can’t avoid this hit since the Education Department says it will automatically cancel loans for eight million borrowers for which it has income data on file, namely those in income-based repayment plans. Mr. Garrison’s injury is also imminent because the Department said it plans to begin canceling debt for borrowers by early October.

Biden is trying to use the “pandemic national emergency” as an excuse for the loan forgiveness, even though he told us the other day that the pandemic was over. And then there is Biden’s usurping Congress’ power to handle economic decisions.

Nice try, Mr. Biden.

Six states (including Indiana) are going to be subject to the tax penalty unless they change their current laws: Arkansas, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina and Wisconsin. And Conservatives are voicing their protests but still have not filed a lawsuit:

Conservatives have called the debt forgiveness plan fiscally irresponsible and unfair to the millions of Americans who never attended college or already paid off their education loans. Republicans have also said the plan is illegal because it wrests spending powers given to Congress, arguing that the 2003 law was never intended to give the executive branch such unilateral, broad authority.

Fortunately, Frank Garrison’s employer, the Pacific Legal Foundation, has stepped up to represent him. They have characterized Biden’s action and the foundation’s response in this way:

Loan cancellation is incredibly controversial—and very unpopular when Americans consider the cost. It will inevitably lead to greater divisions among Americans, as those who paid their loans or did not attend college—typically older and blue-collar Americans—will have good reason to think that we no longer have a government of, by, and for the people, but one that serves those with the loudest voices at any given moment or are most like those in power.

This is why the Framers designed the Constitution as they did. The separation of powers ensures that no department of government can make unilateral decisions, and that laws come from the body that represents the people: Congress. Even when Congress does the wrong thing, the lawmaking process ensures that the people’s voices are heard. Ramming expensive and divisive programs down the throats of Americans through executive fiat is never a good idea.

On behalf of Frank and other borrowers like him, Pacific Legal Foundation filed the nation’s first lawsuit challenging the Education Department’s unacceptable abuse of executive authority to restore the rule of law and to enforce the Constitution’s separation of powers.

*     *     *     *

Aside from Biden’s usual abuse of the powers of the Executive Branch, and his usurpation of Congress’ powers, I am extremely disappointed once again to see the fecklessness of the Republicans at the federal and state levels. They knew this was coming weeks ago, even months ago. Why couldn’t they figure out how to be assertive and to act? Why were they only talking with each other instead of finding some way to find standing like Frank Garrison? Why can’t we have Republicans who stand up for the legislative branch, and more importantly, for the people of this country?

Is there anyone we can count on anymore to take seriously the welfare of the citizenry?

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 66 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Sadly the question should be more correctly formulated: Are those who fight back Republicans? More and more of us deeply committed to constitutional principals wonder why we are Republicans other than because we are not Democrats. We need to find a bridge to the “not Republican” Democrats who are feeling about their party in the same way. 

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin (View Comment):

    Sadly the question should be more correctly formulated: Are those who fight back Republicans? More and more of us deeply committed to constitutional principals wonder why we are Republicans other than because we are not Democrats. We need to find a bridge to the “not Republican” Democrats who are feeling about their party in the same way.

    So true. And yet I worry every time we discuss a third party. It’s disconcerting to feel that no one represents me, and it seems there’s not much I can do about it . . . 

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I wonder if Republicans were glad the Libertarian stepped in; then they wouldn’t be responsible for stopping the student loan forgiveness and all those bucks going to those poor students in debt. 

    • #3
  4. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Good to see this happening. When Biden announced this forgiveness plan the analysis was disheartening. It was mainly, this is wrong but there doesn’t seem to be a clear way to combat it. This guy has demonstrated harm and people willing to take up his case.

    To answer the post’s question, I rarely see it. DeSantis and a few other governors see to be. Trump tried but had to fight those in the party as well as the Democrats. The few who do are rarely imitated. Strength in numbers, rally together, and all that. I understand the argument that DeSantis should stay as governor, where he probably has a greater effect, and can lead the way for other wobbly governors. The states need to stand together and tell the feds to sod off. Weaken Leviathan from that angle.

    • #4
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Good to see this happening. When Biden announced this forgiveness plan the analysis was disheartening. It was mainly, this is wrong but there doesn’t seem to be a clear way to combat it. This guy has demonstrated harm and people willing to take up his case.

    To answer the post’s question, I rarely see it. DeSantis and a few other governors see to be. Trump tried but had to fight those in the party as well as the Democrats. The few who do are rarely imitated. Strength in numbers, rally together, and all that. I understand the argument that DeSantis should stay as governor, where he probably has a greater effect, and can lead the way for other wobbly governors. The states need to stand together and tell the feds to sod off. Weaken Leviathan from that angle.

    I’ve become increasingly disappointed with Republicans, Bishop Wash. They talk and make “great plans” and do nothing. I would love to see the states take more power; that was the Constitution’s original intention. I wonder how we can seriously make that happen?

    • #5
  6. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I recall that during the run up to the 2020 election, candidates in PA (and maybe other states) went to court to challenge election laws/rules changes made by the state courts. The suit was tossed because the had no standing; the courts said they had not yet suffered a harm. They tried again after the election, since they had clearly suffered a harm, and the suit was tossed because they waited too long to bring the suit. Damned if they did, damned if they didn’t.

    Expanded definition of “standing” would help strike some of these actions down before it’s too late. I also realize that would invite nuisance suits, etc. But there has to be some way to clean this up.

    • #6
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I don’t know either, MWD, but I’d love to hear from lawyers on this concern. Then again, when they were bounced for lack of standing, I’m not clear why they couldn’t have changed their suit and demonstrated standing within the time constraints. It would be helpful to know.

    • #7
  8. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I don’t know either, MWD, but I’d love to hear from lawyers on this concern. Then again, when they were bounced for lack of standing, I’m not clear why they couldn’t have changed their suit and demonstrated standing within the time constraints. It would be helpful to know.

    My understanding is that the legal concept of “latches” came into play, but I really don’t understand it. They filed suit almost immediately after the election. I just don’t get it.

    • #8
  9. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Good to see this happening. When Biden announced this forgiveness plan the analysis was disheartening. It was mainly, this is wrong but there doesn’t seem to be a clear way to combat it. This guy has demonstrated harm and people willing to take up his case.

    To answer the post’s question, I rarely see it. DeSantis and a few other governors see to be. Trump tried but had to fight those in the party as well as the Democrats. The few who do are rarely imitated. Strength in numbers, rally together, and all that. I understand the argument that DeSantis should stay as governor, where he probably has a greater effect, and can lead the way for other wobbly governors. The states need to stand together and tell the feds to sod off. Weaken Leviathan from that angle.

    I’ve become increasingly disappointed with Republicans, Bishop Wash. They talk and make “great plans” and do nothing. I would love to see the states take more power; that was the Constitution’s original intention. I wonder how we can seriously make that happen?

    Me too. The first presidential election I was able to vote in was Bush/Clinton. The entire time I’ve been politically aware, the Republican Party has been promising to eliminate the Department of Education. Some years louder than others. I kind of knew it was young. Occasionally remembered that President Carter created it. A couple years ago I looked it up. Carter created it in October 1979 and it became active in May 1980. Republicans weren’t able to smother something in its infancy. 

    Then they create a new department after 9/11. I expected Japanese internment camp level overreaches after the attack. Something historians would looked back on to shame us. Something like locking down the border, full stop. Instead we got a new Cabinet Department and the TSA. Guess it turned out similar, overreaches against Americans.

    • #9
  10. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Cocaine Mitch controls all of the ammunition. And he only permits it to be used against Tea Party upstarts in his own party. He makes footsy with the democrats behind the scenes all the while pretending to be strong, conservative and tough for the folks back home. He is a shyster.

    • #10
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    No

    • #11
  12. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    I see that Sen. Willard “Mitt” Romney is refusing to endorse fellow Utah Republican, Sen. Mike Lee, in his re-election effort.   With allies like that, who need enemies?

    • #12
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    I see that Sen. Willard “Mitt” Romney is refusing to endorse fellow Utah Republican, Sen. Mike Lee, in his re-election effort. With allies like that, who need enemies?

    No kidding! The man is a curse to the party. I don’t understand him. 

    • #13
  14. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I don’t know either, MWD, but I’d love to hear from lawyers on this concern. Then again, when they were bounced for lack of standing, I’m not clear why they couldn’t have changed their suit and demonstrated standing within the time constraints. It would be helpful to know.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not), they didn’t have standing in the pre-election suits because the harm they were alleging (and maybe even the acts they were alleging to be improper) hadn’t happened yet, and might not happen. Though I’m not sure about PA state courts, Courts are generally barred, constitutionally, from issuing advisory opinions to the other branches about how they should do things – i.e. butting in before there’s a genuine case.  Thus, the standing rules.

    There are all sorts of good policy reasons for this, but chief among them is that it helps prevent half-hearted, or even false flag litigation.  Important to remember in this discussion is how courts work – their rulings must be based on evidence presented (subject to all kinds of rules) at hearings. The court does no independent fact finding. So, without standing rules, you would have a bunch of precedent setting case law that was not really fully and vigorously argued by the losing side.  

    In the second suit, then, the problem was the fact that the plaintiffs didn’t challenge the election procedures after the first election that used them (the primary, iirc). They would have had standing (assuming they could show vote totals were different), but presumably they liked the results, so they didn’t bother. Instead, they waited until after the 2nd election (the general), when they apparently didn’t like the results, to bring the case again. That’s where the laches defense comes in for the other side. 

    • #14
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    I see that Sen. Willard “Mitt” Romney is refusing to endorse fellow Utah Republican, Sen. Mike Lee, in his re-election effort. With allies like that, who need enemies?

    No kidding! The man is a curse to the party. I don’t understand him.

    I still voted for him like a good Republican. 

    Pity my “Betters” did not feel they owed that respect to me for my candidate. 

    • #15
  16. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I don’t know either, MWD, but I’d love to hear from lawyers on this concern. Then again, when they were bounced for lack of standing, I’m not clear why they couldn’t have changed their suit and demonstrated standing within the time constraints. It would be helpful to know.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not), they didn’t have standing in the pre-election suits because the harm they were alleging (and maybe even the acts they were alleging to be improper) hadn’t happened yet, and might not happen. Though I’m not sure about PA state courts, Courts are generally barred, constitutionally, from issuing advisory opinions to the other branches about how they should do things – i.e. butting in before there’s a genuine case. Thus, the standing rules.

    There are all sorts of good policy reasons for this, but chief among them is that it helps prevent half-hearted, or even false flag litigation. Important to remember in this discussion is how courts work – their rulings must be based on evidence presented (subject to all kinds of rules) at hearings. The court does no independent fact finding. So, without standing rules, you would have a bunch of precedent setting case law that was not really fully and vigorously argued by the losing side.

    In the second suit, then, the problem was the fact that the plaintiffs didn’t challenge the election procedures after the first election that used them (the primary, iirc). They would have had standing (assuming they could show vote totals were different), but presumably they liked the results, so they didn’t bother. Instead, they waited until after the 2nd election (the general), when they apparently didn’t like the results, to bring the case again. That’s where the laches defense comes in for the other side.

    In other words in cases of election law.  You can’t sue before the changes because it is advisory and you can’t sue after the first election (the primary) because you can’t prove harm and by the time it gets the the general you missed your opportunity.   Therefore the court can usurp the power of the legislature and no one can do anything about it.  That seems broken does it not?

    • #16
  17. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Good to see this happening. When Biden announced this forgiveness plan the analysis was disheartening. It was mainly, this is wrong but there doesn’t seem to be a clear way to combat it. This guy has demonstrated harm and people willing to take up his case.

    To answer the post’s question, I rarely see it. DeSantis and a few other governors see to be. Trump tried but had to fight those in the party as well as the Democrats. The few who do are rarely imitated. Strength in numbers, rally together, and all that. I understand the argument that DeSantis should stay as governor, where he probably has a greater effect, and can lead the way for other wobbly governors. The states need to stand together and tell the feds to sod off. Weaken Leviathan from that angle.

    I’ve become increasingly disappointed with Republicans, Bishop Wash. They talk and make “great plans” and do nothing. I would love to see the states take more power; that was the Constitution’s original intention. I wonder how we can seriously make that happen?

    I do not know how to make it happen, but if Congress could no longer bribe state governments with federal largesse to push the state to implement some policy or other that the feds are prohibited from enacting, then the states would be a lot less strait-jacketed by DC. Also, it would be nice to prohibit consent decrees with activist NGOs that put in place restrictive policies, imposed by unelected judges and officials, such as have affected scores of police departments around the country.  Interrupt the money supply and there could be reform.

    • #17
  18. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    If I recall correctly (and I may not), they didn’t have standing in the pre-election suits because the harm they were alleging (and maybe even the acts they were alleging to be improper) hadn’t happened yet, and might not happen.

    I get that, but the act itself of the courts changing the election law seems unconstitutional, at least to the layman who reads Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

    How is a court allowed to change the manner of holding elections? (Of course, I may be misremembering the facts here. Could be that the PA SoS or BOE changed it, but that’s not the legislature either.)

    • #18
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I get that, but the act itself of the courts changing the election law seems unconstitutional, at least to the layman who reads Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

    One definition I read said that the change might not have been made, but was “imminent.” What in the world does that mean?

    • #19
  20. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I don’t know either, MWD, but I’d love to hear from lawyers on this concern. Then again, when they were bounced for lack of standing, I’m not clear why they couldn’t have changed their suit and demonstrated standing within the time constraints. It would be helpful to know.

    My understanding is that the legal concept of “latches” came into play, but I really don’t understand it. They filed suit almost immediately after the election. I just don’t get it.

    The judges are part of the Swamp Trump wanted to drain. It goes no deeper than that. They are political operatives. 

    Maybe not all judges, because according to reports one member of the PA supreme court made a pretty strong dissent to the majority ruling. 

    • #20
  21. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Worth reading:

    Don’t Take the Bait

    I want to offer my sincerest apologies for your present illiberal treatment by the Democrats, especially progressive Democrats. Your rights as Americans are being violated—in speech and in deed and in broad daylight. If present trends continue, it’s not going to end well for America.

    May I offer you some advice? I know the nature of what you are up against. Progressives are bullies. They don’t like liberals either. Progressives don’t like the idea or reality of dissent. They are impatient with the democratic process and persuasion. It’s either their way or the Substack way. They are unbearable. Heads up: they are goading you to a prime-time slaughter.

    A mild-mannered historian, Jon Meacham, framed a Bull Connor of a barn-burner speech for President Biden. As the race-baiting segregationist Connor once sought to do with blacks, Biden’s speech looked to put the deplorable outside our civic and social order as enemies of the people.

    Meacham’s speech had a message for two groups of Republicans. To the mainstream, populist-adjacent Republicans, the message was: It’s time to bend the knee and join the Liz Cheney, Democrat-sanctioned Republican future. To the “ultra MAGA” Republicans, the message was an intended provocation—a poke in the chest, a double-dare to stand up, push back.

    The progressives are ready and wanting you to show up for a fight. They want you to show yourselves as the animals that they say you are. They are provoking folks who see themselves as American patriots so that they can cast them as domestic terrorists.

    Don’t take the bait. They are looking to provoke a civil war. Instead, give them a civil rights response: peaceful and nonviolent protest is the only way forward. That’s the proven way to fight the oppression of a greater power with asymmetrical advantages.

    . . .

    Preceding Biden’s speech was the legally sanctioned raid of former President Donald Trump, who is widely expected to pursue one more presidential campaign. After the speech, the FBI legally served and netted all the president’s men, with no blowback at all from the mainstream press. Poke, poke.

    Don’t take the bait. If you do, you’ll be playing into the trap set for you.

    If you find yourself mad as hell and you don’t want to take it anymore—for the sake of what you hold dear, stand down. You should be suspicious of anyone calling for kinetic action. There is good reason to think that that person is an FBI agent. Big Tech and the FBI are watching, waiting, and enabling. They want a super-sized Ruby Ridge. Don’t give it to them.

    An eyes-wide-open understanding of this asymmetrical distribution of power calls for a civil disobedience response—peaceful, nonviolent resistance. Let them show their illiberal nature. Don’t give them a diversion that distracts from the consequences of their horrible policies.

    • #21
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):
    An eyes-wide-open understanding of this asymmetrical distribution of power calls for a civil disobedience response—peaceful, nonviolent resistance. Let them show their illiberal nature. Don’t give them a diversion that distracts from the consequences of their horrible policies.

    I liked the article, although we’re not the people he needs to address. If violence breaks out from the Right, it won’t necessarily be some white supremacist, either. It will probably be some middle class person who is struggling in many ways–financially and culturally–and is at his wit’s end. In a sense I wouldn’t blame him. But will we all be dragged into his personal war? Progressives don’t need a movement to fight–they just need one person to light the match.

    • #22
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):
    An eyes-wide-open understanding of this asymmetrical distribution of power calls for a civil disobedience response—peaceful, nonviolent resistance. Let them show their illiberal nature. Don’t give them a diversion that distracts from the consequences of their horrible policies.

    I liked the article, although we’re not the people he needs to address. If violence breaks out from the Right, it won’t necessarily be some white supremacist, either. It will probably be some middle class person who is struggling in many ways–financially and culturally–and is at his wit’s end. In a sense I wouldn’t blame him. But will we all be dragged into his personal war? Progressives don’t need a movement to fight–they just need one person to light the match.

    Right. That’s his point. Big Tech and the FBI and the Ruling Class . . . they’re just watching and waiting for their moment. “They want a super-sized Ruby Ridge.”

    But I’m certain the FBI can find people to create an incident. Look at what they did with their Whitmer Kidnapping Plot. Yes, I do believe they were behind the Jan. 6th riots, too. Those were FBI assets telling people to go into the Capitol. It gave them pretext for clamping down.

    I wonder if they were also behind some of the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020? I mean, over and over again, mysterious people left pallets of bricks in inner-city areas for protesters ready to throw. Who were those people? Why didn’t anyone want to find out?

    Who was “Umbrella Man“? A white supremacist? Or an FBI asset helping stoke the violence? There are so few white supremacists that the feds have to keep inventing them.

    • #23
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):
    I wonder if they were also behind some of the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020? I mean, over and over again, mysterious people left pallets of bricks in inner-city areas for protesters ready to throw. Who were those people? Why didn’t anyone want to find out?

    I don’t know. Was their disregard for the rule of law a part of a deliberate plan, or did they just not care? Or both? I don’t know what to think anymore .  . . 

    • #24
  25. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):
    I wonder if the concept of “standing” needs to be expanded/changed. (Not a lawyer, so I have no idea if it’s possible or how to do it.)

    I don’t know either, MWD, but I’d love to hear from lawyers on this concern. Then again, when they were bounced for lack of standing, I’m not clear why they couldn’t have changed their suit and demonstrated standing within the time constraints. It would be helpful to know.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not), they didn’t have standing in the pre-election suits because the harm they were alleging (and maybe even the acts they were alleging to be improper) hadn’t happened yet, and might not happen. Though I’m not sure about PA state courts, Courts are generally barred, constitutionally, from issuing advisory opinions to the other branches about how they should do things – i.e. butting in before there’s a genuine case. Thus, the standing rules.

    There are all sorts of good policy reasons for this, but chief among them is that it helps prevent half-hearted, or even false flag litigation. Important to remember in this discussion is how courts work – their rulings must be based on evidence presented (subject to all kinds of rules) at hearings. The court does no independent fact finding. So, without standing rules, you would have a bunch of precedent setting case law that was not really fully and vigorously argued by the losing side.

    In the second suit, then, the problem was the fact that the plaintiffs didn’t challenge the election procedures after the first election that used them (the primary, iirc). They would have had standing (assuming they could show vote totals were different), but presumably they liked the results, so they didn’t bother. Instead, they waited until after the 2nd election (the general), when they apparently didn’t like the results, to bring the case again. That’s where the laches defense comes in for the other side.

    There were some lawsuits filed by Trump’s attorneys where they would make a claim at a press conference, but when it came time to present evidence to the judge, they admitted that the evidence they had didn’t support their case.

    In some cases, Trump’s attorney withdrew their lawsuit.  They would talk a good game in front of the cameras, but they couldn’t follow through in court.  

    As Trump’s Attorney General mentioned, Republicans outperformed Trump in Pennsylvania.  Many voters cast votes for Republicans for the Pennsylvania state legislature but did not vote for Trump.   

    Trump was just a lousy candidate, worse than Biden, which is really amazing.  

    • #25
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Trump was just a lousy candidate, worse than Biden, which is really amazing.

    Thousands show up to Trump rallies.

    Maybe six show up to Biden rallies.

    And HW thinks that Trump was the lousy candidate.

     

    • #26
  27. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    So in this specific case, standing is established because the plaintiff lives in a state that will tax the amount of the loan “forgiven” as income.

    So the judge rules the state isn’t allowed to tax the forgiveness (federal supremacy), standing goes away, lawsuit dismissed, government gets on with shoveling billions out the door…

    It’s almost poetic.  You can see it coming.

     

     

     

    • #27
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    It would be so refreshing to not have this post be about Trump. Just sayin’ . . . 

    • #28
  29. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    If I recall correctly (and I may not), they didn’t have standing in the pre-election suits because the harm they were alleging (and maybe even the acts they were alleging to be improper) hadn’t happened yet, and might not happen.

    I get that, but the act itself of the courts changing the election law seems unconstitutional, at least to the layman who reads Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

    How is a court allowed to change the manner of holding elections? (Of course, I may be misremembering the facts here. Could be that the PA SoS or BOE changed it, but that’s not the legislature either.)

    I don’t recall the specifics, either, but I know some of the challenges involved changes made by administrative agencies in charge of elections. Legislatures, just a practical matter, have to delegate some of the election process, and decision making, to those agencies.  

    The arguments tend to be over the point at which an agency oversteps the delegated authority.

    • #29
  30. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    These days I see myself as fighting against the MAGA group as much as I am fighting against the Democrats.

    One of my US Senators in Indiana, Mike Braun, voted against aid to Ukraine.   I wrote his office a letter telling him that while I voted for him in 2018, his vote against aid to Ukraine indicates that I might have made a mistake.  

    Trump and Tucker Carlson have soiled the Republican party to the point to where I am reluctant to support the GOP in the way that I have for the last 38 years.  

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.