SCOTUS denies Texas standing.

Sgt. Psycho · Dec 11, 2020

https://www.rt.com/usa/509453-scotus-denies-texas-election-case/

The US Supreme Court rejected the request by Texas to sue four battleground states for improperly administered elections, citing “lack of standing” under the Constitution. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020ORDER IN PENDING CASE155, 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.

fred2207 · Dec 11, 2020

Surprise, Surprise...

Doctor_M · Dec 11, 2020

I'm guessing that's the shooting match.

E.Shell · Dec 11, 2020

Doctor_M said:
I'm guessing that's the shooting match.

Agreed, but is it the end or the beginning?

lilgibby · Dec 11, 2020

Bunch of Spineless sellouts.

Engine4 · Dec 11, 2020

https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1337548142196129792
This lady has some good insight. I was close to giving up, but after listening to her I have a little more patience.

tourrider · Dec 11, 2020

E.Shell said:
Agreed, but is it the end or the beginning?

The end of this Republic as we knew it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mightydog · Dec 11, 2020

And now an idiot is urging Pelosi NOT to seat all the duly elected republicans that backed Trump calling them “traitors to the Union”. Funny coming from a bunch of treasonous scumbags!

AssMan · Dec 11, 2020

ToolAA · Dec 11, 2020

I’m not a legal expert by any means but I’m not in agreement with allowing one state to sue another state because they don’t like their laws. That just opens the door for California and New York to sue other states for all sorts of things they don’t agree with. While I would love to somehow invalidate the election outcome, I think SCOTUS got this one right.

JamesDong · Dec 11, 2020

On the plus side a guy ran over 4 or 5 BLM nutters in NY and was NOT arrested since they were in the road and physically trying to block him in. That's a good thing.

OLM-Medic · Dec 12, 2020

JamesDong said:
On the plus side a guy ran over 4 or 5 BLM nutters in NY and was NOT arrested since they were in the road and physically trying to block him in. That's a good thing.

only 4 or 5? Weak.

1841DNG · Dec 12, 2020

ToolAA said:
I’m not a legal expert by any means but I’m not in agreement with allowing one state to sue another state because they don’t like their laws. That just opens the door for California and New York to sue other states for all sorts of things they don’t agree with. While I would love to somehow invalidate the election outcome, I think SCOTUS got this one right.

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?

Pushrod · Dec 12, 2020

ToolAA said:
I’m not a legal expert by any means but I’m not in agreement with allowing one state to sue another state because they don’t like their laws. That just opens the door for California and New York to sue other states for all sorts of things they don’t agree with. While I would love to somehow invalidate the election outcome, I think SCOTUS got this one right.

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.

czman · Dec 12, 2020

There are what, six "conservative" justices out of nine on the Supreme Court, and all nine determined the plaintiffs in the Texas suit did not have legal standing to bring that sort of suit? A 9-0 decision. I don't believe there are a lot of those. I read that the Electoral College folks in all the states are scheduled to meet this Monday and cast their votes for their states' winner. Assuming Biden gets 270 or more votes, doesn't that mean the game is over? It's hard to imagine the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the decision of the Electoral College for any reason, and how would a state legislature reverse the votes of their state's electoral college vote after the fact?

I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on the internet, but it sure looks to me like Joe Biden won at least 270 electoral college votes, won the popular vote by a big margin, and will be inaugurated in about five weeks. If I am wrong, please help me learn why.

lazarus · Dec 12, 2020

ToolAA said:
I’m not a legal expert by any means but I’m not in agreement with allowing one state to sue another state because they don’t like their laws. That just opens the door for California and New York to sue other states for all sorts of things they don’t agree with. While I would love to somehow invalidate the election outcome, I think SCOTUS got this one right.

Agreed.

lazarus · Dec 12, 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?

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.

Darkemp · Dec 12, 2020

czman said:
A 9-0 decision

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

lazarus · Dec 12, 2020

czman said:
There are what, six "conservative" justices out of nine on the Supreme Court, and all nine determined the plaintiffs in the Texas suit did not have legal standing to bring that sort of suit? A 9-0 decision. I don't believe there are a lot of those. I read that the Electoral College folks in all the states are scheduled to meet this Monday and cast their votes for their states' winner. Assuming Biden gets 270 or more votes, doesn't that mean the game is over? It's hard to imagine the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the decision of the Electoral College for any reason, and how would a state legislature reverse the votes of their state's electoral college vote after the fact?

I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on the internet, but it sure looks to me like Joe Biden won at least 270 electoral college votes, won the popular vote by a big margin, and will be inaugurated in about five weeks. If I am wrong, please help me learn why.

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.

lazarus · 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.

Not really. Alito and Thomas said they would have ALLOWED the suit, but they would NOT have granted any of the relief requested.

That is an even more damning statement. The two most conservative justices basically said that they would allow a state to sue another state, but that the lawsuit was a bunch of thumping on the table with absolutely no discernable legal theory behind it, no evidence. Basically it is a whole bunch of BS that never should have been brought before a court.

SCOTUS denies Texas standing.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Banned

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

"man gotta have a code."

Curmudgeon

Grumpy

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Meh...

Ultimate Member

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Master Blaster

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics