M
MikeInVA
Guest
I believe that the states already have this right.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
billsherman
Guest
SCOTUS has never granted cert for such a case - so no, they don’t have this right.I believe that the states already have this right.
SCOTUS has only granted cert for cases between states on things that directly impact the two (or more) states themselves - NOT the citizens of those states. Things like border disputes and water rights. Physical issues that impact the states.
This would be an entirely new area of law, should SCOTUS grant cert - which is a major reason why it won’t.
Another is that it is clearly just political theater at this point. Do you think SCOTUS wants Ted Cruz making a spectacle of their courtroom? No, they don’t want him anywhere near them.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Pennsylvania just took their gloves off and filed their response:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts
throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original
jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless,
and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution
supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that
view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas
does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
The cascading series of compounding defects in
Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Since Election Day, State and Federal courts
throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.
What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original
jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless,
and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution
supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that
view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas
does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
The cascading series of compounding defects in
Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Which is what I believe is the situation here. Thank you for confirming my thoughts. You explained it much better than I could have.SCOTUS has only granted cert for cases between states on things that directly impact the two (or more) states themselves - NOT the citizens of those states. Things like border disputes and water rights. Physical issues that impact the states.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
So they’re basically telling the Supreme Court how to do its job, and not providing any real response?
I wonder how often the word “bogus” is used in responses to the Supreme Court?
I wonder how often the word “bogus” is used in responses to the Supreme Court?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
LOL:
C. Texas’s Allegations regarding Pennsylvania have Already Been Rejected by Both
State and Federal Courts
Texas offers statements about Pennsylvania law and Pennsylvania’s election administration. Befitting of Texas’s distance and unfamiliarity with either, those statements are littered with patently false allegations and conclusions.
C. Texas’s Allegations regarding Pennsylvania have Already Been Rejected by Both
State and Federal Courts
Texas offers statements about Pennsylvania law and Pennsylvania’s election administration. Befitting of Texas’s distance and unfamiliarity with either, those statements are littered with patently false allegations and conclusions.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
That’s just the preliminary statement. There’s a lot more.So they’re basically telling the Supreme Court how to do its job, and not providing any real response?
B
billsherman
Guest
That’s how legal briefs are written. The party writing the brief tells the court what they want it to do, and why. Then the other side tells the court why the other guys are wrong, and why.So they’re basically telling the Supreme Court how to do its job, and not providing any real response?
Perhaps oddly, briefs don’t defer to the court like you might think. That is they don’t say things like: “You’re the legal expert, so you know what to do.” Instead they say things like: “This is what happened, this is why it’s wrong, and this is what you will do.”
P
PaulinVA
Guest
In the Pennsylvania brief just filed, they make the point that the Justice Alito’s order to PA counties to segregate the mail in ballots received after a certain time was actually the PA AG’s order to the counties that Alito simply copied and used.Perhaps oddly, briefs don’t defer to the court like you might think. That is they don’t say things like: “You’re the legal expert, so you know what to do.” Instead they say things like: “This is what happened, this is why it’s wrong, and this is what you will do.”
So, yes, counsel does sometimes tell the court what they should do. Heck, that’s what their goal is, isn’t it?
P
pnewton
Guest
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices,”
R
RootKitWarrior
Guest
In layman’s term He wants Amy Barrett to be the tie breaker in case of a 4-4 tie if there were only 8.Trump: “I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices,”
P
pnewton
Guest
This is why I look for a 9-0 denial. I do not see even the most liberal judge twisting the Constitution 180 degrees. His constitutional conservative surely will not. I like the appointments made during this administration. I see them as a safeguard against exactly this type of abuse of power we are seeing unfold.Nor is that
view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas
does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.
Last edited:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
That doesn’t say anything about placing a person on the Court to ensure a favorable outcome, which was the original imaginative quote.“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices,”
Is it fair to say that a full Court is less likely to hit a 4-4 tie than an 8-person Court? Assuming so, wouldn’t it be preferential to have a Court that is able to provide a definitive answer?
P
puer.dei
Guest
Speaking as a Texan – not just no . . .Why don’t we let Texas run every state’s elections, if they’re so concerned.
P
puer.dei
Guest
To be fair, I don’t think anyone has previously had to respond to an attempt to disenfranchise 80,000,000 voters.I wonder how often the word “bogus” is used in responses to the Supreme Court?
Weird times call for plain speaking.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, of course. But that point was not the point made above, which was not the reason, but the intent. He did intend since before he lost to have the Supreme Court as a back-up plan. He probably saw this as an election where a single state, or two, would make the difference. When it became four states, he proceeded as if it were a close election anyway.Is it fair to say that a full Court is less likely to hit a 4-4 tie than an 8-person Court?
I do not know who gave him this advice, but it is congruent with the legal advice he has been getting, that is, losing.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Trump’s intent, unless he states it, is only someone’s opinion.but the intent.
P
pnewton
Guest
Then call it a statement about what he saw the future would hold for him. I have no problem splitting hairs when the words I use are imprecise, as they sometimes are.
Things I will miss from CAF - Splitting hairs like this. It has helped me over the years to refine precision in communication. @MikeInVA is right, of course.
Things I will miss from CAF - Splitting hairs like this. It has helped me over the years to refine precision in communication. @MikeInVA is right, of course.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
So why the haste to have her confirmed before the election?Trump’s intent, unless he states it, is only someone’s opinion.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
So why the haste to have her confirmed before the election?
Wanting fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court is to be expected of a president. It would be illogical for him not to want to fill the position (immediately).“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine Justices,”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.