How is it frivilous? It has been ruled that he has no standing to bring the issue forth. All he has to do is make an application with the Supreme Court to have his Writ to request a conference. It is not referred or forwarded by any other court.
How is it frivilous? It has been ruled that he has no standing to bring the issue forth.
***First: That could be due to the fact that damages were “theoretical” until Obama became Pres Elect. The case has not been thrown out due to lack of standing since that time. Second, if he could not ever have standing, the case (along with the other 3 that have been forwarded) would never have been forwarded. Third, the fact that they’ve been discussing this stuff in conference shows that it is not frivolous, and your reply does not address this, which is typical of a troll who seeks to misdirect.
All he has to do is make an application with the Supreme Court to have his Writ to request a conference. It is not referred or forwarded by any other court.
***This does not make sense. You might want to elaborate on it.