The Fundamental Rule

For those asking why federal courts keep tossing election suits for lack of “standing,” rather than because the claims lack merit, they don’t have a choice.#SCOTUS doctrine *requires* federal courts to decide whether plaintiffs have standing *before* they can reach the merits.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) January 2, 2021

...is that courts cannot issue advisory opinions (Unless you are the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on matters involving religious "rights" and you want to be sure somebody's "rights" are held sacrosanct the way God and the 1st Amendment intended).

This stems from the 1998 Steel Co. ruling—rejecting the doctrine of “hypothetical jurisdiction,” where courts had *assumed* standing in cases in which it was easier to reject plaintiffs’ claims on the merits. As Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, Article III doesn’t permit that.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) January 2, 2021

In other words, Art. III courts can't decide a case on the merits (the legal questions raised) if the parties before the court shouldn't be before the court. I can't complain to the courts about something that happened to you, is what it means. Good friends yes, but, hah! Your injury is not mine, and the court can't remedy your injury based on my complaint about it. That's as simple a statement of standing as I can offer, and it's why the court threw out Gohmert's suit; and why the 5th Circuit will, too (and for mootness, probably, by the time they get to it).  This is what Gohmert calls "having no remedy."  He knows better (he was a judge, and undoubtedly wanted his judicial power respected), but he doesn't care or he's suffered some kind of brain injury.  I really can't explain it, except that stupid is as stupid does.

And we keep sending him to D.C. because we like to keep our crazies all in one place, so we can keep an eye on 'em.