You also have to understand that simply being advisory and a part of the review process for appellate courts does not directly reflect the outcome of the cases themselves in my understanding.

Certainly you could argue it could influence the results of a case indirectly and I don't think many would argue against that.

But I think it's significant overreach or going well out of the comfort zones of normality to assume that because these justices so happen to be assigned to these districts (largely unchanged from my understanding from prior to RBG leaving us) to indicate this has any sort of bearing on the legitimacy of Trump's legal team's claims, or the idea that this was set up by the president himself.

My position however is that of a layman.

So take it with a grain of salt of course.

I would be interested in knowing if the way that these cases are being rejected might limit the options for appeal. For example, when Lin Wood's case in GA was dismissed for lack of standing, he could only appeal that decision. If he were to win that on appeal, it would then kick back down to the lower court to be heard on the merits. If he loses on merit, then that can be appealed. The fact that these cases are being dismissed, I am guessing that most of these would have the same issue. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be completely off-base.

I don't think many cases are open to appeal depending on when the case was dismissed through the litigation process.

Like, you're talking about rejection on 'the face' of the complaint.

Again, I'm no lawyer, but I'd gather it's usually a pretty objective standard that they use for determining standing.

I think Trump's campaign has until Dec 8 to file any additional lawsuits pending the casting of electoral votes of Dec 14th, sort of grace period to get any contested grounds resolved before then. I could be misinformed on that though.

@RobertGrulerEsq I like physical books; any place you prefer people to buy it?

Speaking of, I should probably give that a read while I have some time.

@Maw, you just advanced to level 15!

_flex._

Hi!

Welcome to the Discord @Operation12 !

So what happens if a justice removes themself from a case for whatever reason? Do they go and get another judge from lower court?

@osok if it’s SCOTUS, and a Justice decided to recuse, the Court would have to sit with less than a full panel.

https://mynorthwest.com/2322267/inslee-shutdown-restaurant-peaceful-protest/

I mean, civil disobedience can probably count as peaceful protest in this case. I'm not sure, but it sounds logical.

The main argument to counter will likely involve around the infringement of other people's rights in regards to potential health risks.

Can a contract be nullified if one of the parties' names is misspelled?

Don't believe so, no.

I believe it's considered on good faith arguments in contracts.

Did this person reasonably think the contract was about them?

When signed?

Most likely

If so, it's considered bad faith to suggest that it means he willingly signed something he knew he was signing in regards to himself, but then playing on a technicality if he broke the contract.

just wondering if it can be argued,

Could likely be argued, I'm almost certain they'll consider it a bad faith argument/defense though.

I agree, it would be interesting to see it play out though, hypothetically.

Good and bad faith are large determiners in contract cases from my understanding.

Both from the contractor and contractee.

And is based largely on 'reasonable interpretation'

What I've never understood in some cases, where the state is alleging a serious crime like murder is why set bail so high in the millions instead of denying it outright.

They do deny it in some cases.

It's likely due to the heinousness of the crime on the outset, and determined from the prior criminal history of a defendant.

It's about the fear of 'is this person a threat to the public while at large?'

I know, but in the instances it's not denied it's still set at a high amount that no one would expect the defendant to pay it anyways. Is it just a formality?

Is it likely this person will murder again if out on bond?

The amount it's set at is largely to make sure people show back up in court and don't try to flee the country.