SCOTUS denies Texas standing.

Occam · Dec 17, 2020

adit said:
Do we know as fact if ACB/Kav/Gorsuch recused themselves or not in the TX case?

No, we don't. We only know that it required five of them to get the case heard, and Thomas and Alito went to the trouble to speak their minds about it. Implies that one or more of Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh were likely not happy with the standing issue, or were cowed by Roberts on this one.

adit · Dec 17, 2020

Occam said:
No, we don't. We only know that it required five of them to get the case heard, and Thomas and Alito went to the trouble to speak their minds about it. Implies that one or more of Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh were likely not happy with the standing issue, or were cowed by Roberts on this one.

I wonder if Roberts guilted them into recusing????

Bob A · Dec 18, 2020

adit said:
I wonder if Roberts guilted them into recusing????

IMO, Roberts doesn't have the moral standing to "guilt" anyone. He's a toad-eater for the DNC, and everyone knows it.

traveller · Dec 18, 2020

lazarus said:
It’s not true.

“Someone told me they heard someone else claim a thing”

If I need to expand upon that, the justices met by teleconference. So a staffer couldn’t hear Roberts and the liberal justices screaming through the walls.

I'll file that 'yelling through the wall' in #shitthatneverhappened

Bush v. Gore was a suit that rose up to the supreme court from within the state. It wasn't Oklahome suing Florida about their election administration. Very different beast, no need for anyone to yell about it.

The decision not to grant an injunction was 9-0, the dissent was limited to the question whether the supreme court is obligated to hear a genuine state vs. state suit or whether they have the discretion to simply not take it up.

Deep Lurker · Dec 18, 2020

Occam said:
No, we don't. We only know that it required five of them to get the case heard, and Thomas and Alito went to the trouble to speak their minds about it. Implies that one or more of Gorsuch, Barret, or Kavanaugh were likely not happy with the standing issue, or were cowed by Roberts on this one.

As you are one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and trusted members here, I hesitate to add a correction to anything you’ve posted, but it is only a minor technical edit for clarity.

I takes only four Justices, not five, to grant cert to hear a case.

A very knowledgeable friend, a daily observer of the Court’s process, cert grants and rulings, shared with me the following:

“So at best, there were maybe three who would have taken the case, but only Thomas and Alito dissented from denial, BUT both say they'd not grant any other relief.

It's cryptic, but any of the Justices could have explained why they did what they did. None spoke.“

Occam · Dec 18, 2020

Deep Lurker said:
As you are one of the most experienced, knowledgeable and trusted members here, I hesitate to add a correction to anything you’ve posted, but it is only a minor technical edit for clarity.

I takes only four Justices, not five, to grant cert to hear a case.

Ah! BUT: in a case where the SCOTUS is the original jurisdiction (which is the case when the complaint is one state vs. another), they DO have to get five justices to say yes. In any other case (like where something works its way up from the lower courts), you are right that only FOUR justices have to say yes to grant cert. But there was no need for cert in the TX suit, only do-we-hear-it-or-not, and five's the rule when it's state-on-state.

The SCOTUS is so rarely seen as the court of original jurisdiction that we're just not used to needing five justices who have their eye on the ball.

Deep Lurker · Dec 18, 2020

Occam said:
Ah! BUT: in a case where the SCOTUS is the original jurisdiction (which is the case when the complaint is one state vs. another), they DO have to get five justices to say yes. In any other case (like where something works its way up from the lower courts), you are right that only FOUR justices have to say yes to grant cert. But there was no need for cert in the TX suit, only do-we-hear-it-or-not, and five's the rule when it's state-on-state.

The SCOTUS is so rarely seen as the court of original jurisdiction that we're just not used to needing five justices who have their eye on the ball.

Of course, you are correct.

There was no petition from Texas to SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari, because there was no lower court to receive the writ to “send up” the case on appeal.

I learned that Texas had to instead file a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint” in the Supreme Court to ask them to take this case of Original Jurisdiction.

As you say, a rare enough event that even researching the question (and the procedure) associated with the Court’s Original Jurisdiction is difficult because so many online sources only discuss the “Rule of Four” for cert associated with appeals from below.

I’ll be spending some quality time reading here:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560?s=21

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/texas-v-pennsylvania-whats-the-deal

Thanks for adding to my knowledge.

press1280 · Dec 20, 2020

adit said:
Do we know as fact if ACB/Kav/Gorsuch recused themselves or not in the TX case?

I'm 99% sure if they did recuse then the order would have said so.

There is no reason on earth that they should have recused themselves anyway. They have no personal stake in the case, none have heard the case at a lower court.

czman · Dec 23, 2020

KingClown said:
This sounds like this mysterious water cooler that shows up after 50 posts

I just noticed I got past 50 posts and I am still unenlightened. Maybe it is 500 posts, which is probably more than I have posted anywhere in my lifetime.

Brute · Dec 23, 2020

czman said:
I just noticed I got past 50 posts and I am still unenlightened. Maybe it is 500 posts, which is probably more than I have posted anywhere in my lifetime.

Crap, going to have to take that one off my bucket list now. Hitting 50 would have been tough enough for me already.

czman · Dec 23, 2020

Brute said:
Crap, going to have to take that one off my bucket list now. Hitting 50 would have been tough enough for me already.

I'm not sure what happens when you get to 50, but I did just get a phone call from Scarlett Johansson, inviting me to spend the holiday weekend with her at the No-Tell Motel. Told her I'd have to ask my wife before I said yes. As usual, my wife just laughed at me.

You suppose that was it when you get to 50? :lol2:

adit · Dec 23, 2020

czman said:
I just noticed I got past 50 posts and I am still unenlightened. Maybe it is 500 posts, which is probably more than I have posted anywhere in my lifetime.

Squaregrouper · Dec 23, 2020

czman said:
I just noticed I got past 50 posts and I am still unenlightened. Maybe it is 500 posts, which is probably more than I have posted anywhere in my lifetime.

Make sure you're logged in then click the link below. If it takes you somewhere nice, you're in The Watercooler.
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=251761

SCOTUS denies Texas standing.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Occam

Not Even ONE Indictment

adit

ReMember

Bob A

όυ φροντισ

traveller

The one with two L

Deep Lurker

Ultimate Member

Occam

Not Even ONE Indictment

Deep Lurker

Ultimate Member

press1280

Ultimate Member

czman

Banned

Brute

Unwitting Accomplice

czman

Banned

adit

ReMember

Squaregrouper

Kragaphile

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page