It is important to split out the cases that were rejected on standing versus a determination that the evidence was lacking. The Forbes article fails to split those out and leaves one with the impression that the evidence was reviewed in all those cases. I have yet to hear of a case where discovery proceeded at any meaningful level.
To the comment about the cases not being about fraud, unequal treatment is likely easily proven without discovery as it is plainly obvious in some cases. This is probably the one way to quickly get cases to be resolved but again, standing makes these tough in the current judicial environment. It was a strategy and one that seems to be well advised despite being a long shot.
Ultimately, like it or not, there is not going to be a true determination of fraud until we’ll after Biden is installed. Regardless, this is the model for stealing an election. Focus on key locations where the means is available and officials are amenable and then delay with standing arguments and obfuscation of facts.
To be clear, most election fraud cases have not been dismissed for lack of standing. This MAGA line has been promulgated since the Texas case was dismissed for lack of standing, despite most of the people who talk about it not really understanding what standing doctrine is... but that's a lesson for another day I guess. Rather, most have dismissed for failure to state a claim, which is very different than standing. This quite literally means that, having construed all evidence, allegations, and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
If actionable unequal treatment was "easily proven without discovery," they wouldn't be getting dismissed for failing to state claims. Again, standing is really not an issue in most of the lawsuits thus far. Additionally, the standard for dismissal requires construing everything in the plaintiff's favor, the court is bound to not obfuscate the plaintiff's facts.
It is important to split out the cases that were rejected on standing versus a determination that the evidence was lacking. The Forbes article fails to split those out and leaves one with the impression that the evidence was reviewed in all those cases. I have yet to hear of a case where discovery proceeded at any meaningful level.
To the comment about the cases not being about fraud, unequal treatment is likely easily proven without discovery as it is plainly obvious in some cases. This is probably the one way to quickly get cases to be resolved but again, standing makes these tough in the current judicial environment. It was a strategy and one that seems to be well advised despite being a long shot.
Ultimately, like it or not, there is not going to be a true determination of fraud until we’ll after Biden is installed. Regardless, this is the model for stealing an election. Focus on key locations where the means is available and officials are amenable and then delay with standing arguments and obfuscation of facts.
To be clear, most election fraud cases have not been dismissed for lack of standing. This MAGA line has been promulgated since the Texas case was dismissed for lack of standing, despite most of the people who talk about it not really understanding what standing doctrine is... but that's a lesson for another day I guess. Rather, most have dismissed for failure to state a claim, which is very different than standing. This quite literally means that, having construed all evidence, allegations, and inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has failed to allege an actionable claim.
If actionable unequal treatment was "easily proven without discovery," they wouldn't be getting dismissed for failing to state claims. Again, standing is really not an issue in most of the lawsuits thus far. Additionally, the standard for dismissal requires construing everything in the plaintiff's favor, the court is bound to not obfuscate the plaintiff's facts.