SCOTUS denies Texas standing.

Slackdaddy · Dec 12, 2020

But in a way,,, the SCOTUS just re-affirmed states rights??
So now the "red" states can take this ruling and tell the feds to stick it in relation to all the areas the feds have stuck their nose in the last 100 years.

lazarus said:
The constitution puts it up to the states to determine how to select their electors. So you'd still be allowing one state to sue another state to tell them how they should be selecting their electors.

Besides, a lot of the stuff Texas was suing over are exactly the same things TEXAS did leading up to the election with changing election laws last minute, waivers on things, etc.

Really what it comes down to is it has never been about states rights.

czman · Dec 12, 2020

lazarus said:
You are not. The only hail mary is that congress still has to approve the certification of the electors votes on January 6th. Congress hears each states votes and if one member of the house and one member of the senate object to a state's electoral certification, then it requires both houses of congress to debate the certification.

If BOTH houses vote to reject it, then that state's legislature shall meet and vote to determine who receives their electoral votes (congress cannot at that point object).

But again it requires BOTH houses to have a plurality of congressmen to reject that state's electors.

The odds of the democrat controlled house voting to overturn that...

And honestly, I doubt they'll even get the vast majority of GOP house members to vote against. Based on who signed on to the lawsuit, I'll assume there'd be at least 100+ who would, because they like political power and are scared of Trump saying nasty things about them and getting primaried way more than they care about the rule of law. Pretty certain there will be a few GOP senators who will also vote against.

But it is what it is.

Thanks for the good info. Appreciate it.

Tungsten · Dec 12, 2020

Slackdaddy said:
But in a way,,, the SCOTUS just re-affirmed states rights??
So now the "red" states can take this ruling and tell the feds to stick it in relation to all the areas the feds have stuck their nose in the last 100 years.

No. They just affirmed that states rights only matter in regard to another state. When it comes to federal government trampling on states right, the Supreme Court has quite consistently been on team fed.

Occam · Dec 12, 2020

Mark392001 said:
It was 7-2, you’re thinking of the similar case they declined to hear regarding PA that was 9-0.

To clarify: that 9-0 vote was NOT then declining to hear something. It was them declining to provide the requested injunctive relief before having heard something. Not at all the same thing.

rbird7282 · Dec 12, 2020

lazarus said:
The constitution puts it up to the states to determine how to select their electors. So you'd still be allowing one state to sue another state to tell them how they should be selecting their electors.

Besides, a lot of the stuff Texas was suing over are exactly the same things TEXAS did leading up to the election with changing election laws last minute, waivers on things, etc.

Really what it comes down to is it has never been about states rights.

It’s not about changing election laws, it’s about how they were changed. The only legal way to change them is through state legislatures, not the state AG, state Supreme Court, or any other method.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lazarus · Dec 12, 2020

rbird7282 said:
It’s not about changing election laws, it’s about how they were changed. The only legal way to change them is through state legislatures, not the state AG, state Supreme Court, or any other method.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which Texas also did.

And Texas was including objections to changes that, for example, were passed by the PA legislature.

Their primary argument in the suit was that the various changes made it impossible to detect fraud.

So it went from "massive fraud, believe us, but we won't show you any evidence of it". That after a few weeks of no judge believing any of the lawsuits that could not produce any evidence and lawyers backtracking in court to say there wasn't actually any evidence (because, you know, legal sanctions for lying in court). To now, "well, there was massive fraud, but there is no evidence of it because these states changed their laws to make it impossible to detect".

Many of the changes which Texas also did leading up to the election. The changes with Texas Supreme court blessed as legal.

It was a hail mary with no chance of success in part because Paxton is facing federal charges for retaliation, bribery and corruption in office and wants a pardon.

ToolAA · Dec 12, 2020

Pushrod said:
I believe you're seeing this wrong; It is not about another State not liking the laws of a State, it's that the other States are not FOLLOWING their own election laws, which affects the value of the votes of the plaintiff states, who did follow their State laws.

Maybe my term “not liking the laws” was a bit flippant, but I still think it’s a slippery slope for those who believe that the true strength of the American government is the fact that states should have quite a bit of autonomy.

I think it’s a slippery slope for conservatives to push litigation like this. While it seems very obvious that PA violated their own election law, which in this case has national implications which do impact the citizens of TX it not a pandora’s box that I think should be opened in this way. Once SCOTUS precedent is set what is to stop New York from suing Florida or Texas for not enforcing their own laws with respect to the 2nd amendment, if their lack of enforcement resulted in harm to the citizens of New York. I can think of a thousand ways that anti-federalist and socialist would use this precedent to impose their will over the serfs.

JamesDong · Dec 12, 2020

OLM-Medic said:
only 4 or 5? Weak.

Prius........

traveller · Dec 12, 2020

Occam said:
To clarify: that 9-0 vote was NOT then declining to hear something. It was them declining to provide the requested injunctive relief before having heard something. Not at all the same thing.

Alito and and Thomas disagreed on a procedural point. They both were with the majority finding that TX had no standing to sue. They would have given leave to file , accepted the case and then dismissed it for lack of standing.

press1280 · Dec 13, 2020

traveller said:
Alito and and Thomas disagreed on a procedural point. They both were with the majority finding that TX had no standing to sue. They would have given leave to file , accepted the case and then dismissed it for lack of standing.

I didn't read it that way. I read it as they would have allowed TX to proceed with the case, but they wouldn't have granted any injunctions even if allowed to proceed, and didn't believe they could deny review in this case.

No opinion on the overall case or standing.

chrisflhtc · Dec 13, 2020

The suite has to come from within the state like the Ag's in the contested states that sided with Texas. They are the ones that have to press the issue. It seems like that is the way it will have to go. imho
Chris

Occam · Dec 13, 2020

traveller said:
Alito and and Thomas disagreed on a procedural point. They both were with the majority finding that TX had no standing to sue. They would have given leave to file , accepted the case and then dismissed it for lack of standing.

Not the same case.

traveller · Dec 13, 2020

Occam said:
Not the same case.

Huh ? Was there another 'Texas v. Pennsylvania' case ?

ORDER IN PENDING CASE
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

Alito and Thomas did not disagree on the finding that Texas has no 'judicially cognizable interest' that would justify a lawsuit and they wouldn't have granted the injunctive relief Paxton was looking for. Alito and Thomas wanted the court to grant 'leave to file' and take the suit. But as they already agreed on the lack of standing and weren't going to grant injunctive relief, this thing wouldn't have gone anywhere. The decision would have been a little bit longer. Maybe three paragraphs, not two.

Occam · Dec 13, 2020

traveller said:
Huh ?

He was referring to the denial of injunction that everyone loves to say was a one-sentence wonder of judicial harmony.

traveller · Dec 13, 2020

Occam said:
He was referring to the denial of injunction that everyone loves to say was a one-sentence wonder of judicial harmony.

Had they disagreed on the lack of standing, they would have included that into their dissent. Their dissent is strictly limited to the procedural issue.

Slackdaddy · Dec 14, 2020

Soo, there was no one in PA that filed ????

KingClown · Dec 14, 2020

1841DNG said:
Yeah but this is over Federal elections which have much more effects on every state than just internal laws. Regardless of the law, I don't see why states should not be able to challenge each other on potentially unfairly messing with federal elections. State elections not so much.

e. Hypothetical. The interstate popular vote compact gets to 270 worth of electoral votes effectively mandating a national popular vote and rendering the electoral college pointless. Do the 19 smallest states outside of the compact not have standing to sue over how other states handle their federal elections?

They are missing one little detail and that is the the COTUS expressly forbids that

KingClown · Dec 14, 2020

lazarus said:
Which Texas also did.

And Texas was including objections to changes that, for example, were passed by the PA legislature.

Their primary argument in the suit was that the various changes made it impossible to detect fraud.

So it went from "massive fraud, believe us, but we won't show you any evidence of it". That after a few weeks of no judge believing any of the lawsuits that could not produce any evidence and lawyers backtracking in court to say there wasn't actually any evidence (because, you know, legal sanctions for lying in court). To now, "well, there was massive fraud, but there is no evidence of it because these states changed their laws to make it impossible to detect".

Many of the changes which Texas also did leading up to the election. The changes with Texas Supreme court blessed as legal.

It was a hail mary with no chance of success in part because Paxton is facing federal charges for retaliation, bribery and corruption in office and wants a pardon.

No Proof? What about the woman in GA going to jail for recounting the same votes multiple times and the one in Wi going to jail that worked for USPS and admitting to back dating about 100,000 ballots. You know for election fraud. Just the amounts need for biden to catch up and take a small lead. But no thats not evidence of fraud at all is it?

traveller · Dec 14, 2020

Slackdaddy said:
Soo, there was no one in PA that filed ????

There was no shortage of lawsuits from PA.

One of the Kelly suits (the federal one) reached the supreme court last week after both district court and third circuit denied it. The supreme court justices denied the injunction he requested. So now he is probably going to go back and try to get expedited review. So, its not dead yet, but it wont affect this election.

I believe his state suit that was ultimately denied by the PA supreme court is also heading back to the supremes. He applied for 'writ of certoriari' on that one.

There are still billable hours to be generated out of this thing.

Decoy · Dec 14, 2020

It looks like the SCOTUS may have ignored their own precedent.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency

Basically the court said that when one state effects the other, they have standing.

First, the petitioners were found to have standing.[7] Justice Stevens reasoned that the states had a particularly strong interest in the standing analysis.[8] The majority cited Justice Holmes' opinion in Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. (1907):

"The case has been argued largely as if it were one between two private parties; but it is not. The very elements that would be relied upon in a suit between fellow-citizens as a ground for equitable relief are wanting here. The State owns very little of the territory alleged to be affected, and the damage to it capable of estimate in money, possibly, at least, is small. This is a suit by a State for an injury to it in its capacity of quasi-sovereign. In that capacity the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. It has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air."[9]

SCOTUS denies Texas standing.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

My pronouns: Iva/Bigun

Banned

Ultimate Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

The one with two L

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Not Even ONE Indictment

The one with two L

Not Even ONE Indictment

The one with two L

My pronouns: Iva/Bigun

SOmething Witty

SOmething Witty

The one with two L

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics