Jill Stein lacks standing as she is not properly aggrieved, nor has she exhausted all appropriate avenues of redress at the state level.
Aggrieved is not part of the PA legal language, that is MI. She is basically asking the federal court to re-write PA law by requiring a forensic exam which is nowhere to be found in PA election law. This is DOA.
By him saying today, that he will hear a case, that is extremely time sensitive, in three days tells us how he’s gonna rule.
Pennsylvania is locked down.
Constitution says it’s all up to the state legislature, however they have made the laws. Feds shouldn’t be able to start or stop a recount. Must be done according to current state law, whatever that is.
I agree. I'm glad you used the phrase "properly aggrieved."
I listened to the last 2/3 of the Federal Court appeal of the Stein/Michigan recount today. A lot of the argument centered around the fact that the statute didn't define "aggrieved." So, Jill's lawyer argued that anyone could just say they were aggrieved. One of the judges made a comment about this being form over substance, but nobody talked about a "properly" standard that validates being aggrieved.