Legal explanation of Brunson v Alma.
Introduction
Why the Brunson v Alma case is so important in the US Supreme Court. The USSC is much more important than you know.
Explanation
My comments/changes in [brackets].
[A lawyer] has been urged to offer some laymans explanation of two legal principles which are involved in the Brunson case – and were also the bases for dismissal of most if not all of the other challenges to 2020 election fukery. One is STANDING and the other is IMMUNITY Standing Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have limited jurisdiction, meaning that they may only consider a case if the case and parties meet certain requirements. Art. 3 Section 2 gives federal courts power over certain “cases and controversies.” SCOTUS has read into Article III that a plaintiff must have “standing” to bring a case in federal court; that is there must be an actual “cases or controversies” which the party can show effects them for the court to have constitutional jurisdiction. This legal principle traces back to a pair of Supreme Court cases in the 1920s—Fairchild v. Hughes (1920) and Massachusetts v. Mellon (1921)—which together established that plaintiffs cannot sue the government in federal court if they fail to allege that they were specifically injured by (or face imminent injury from) unlawful government conduct. This rule, as the Court explained, was necessary to preserve the separation of powers between the judiciary and the political branches of government: Lawfag says this wasn’t unreasonable. However, in 1992, (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) the Court imposed significant new requirements for “standing” First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical[.]’”
Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly … trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not … th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Yeah that is just what it sound like – SCOTUS protecting their frens in the swamp. And they didn’t hide that fact, basing the new rules on “separation of powers” saying that The wanted to avoid “judicial encroachment on the role of the executive by ruling on matters in which a plaintiff has no direct stake. To quote To permit conversion of an “undifferentiated public interest in executive officers’ compliance with the law into an ‘individual right.’… in the courts is to permit transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”