The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State is involved (Article III, Section 2, second paragraph). Suits against States where the plaintiff is a citizen of another State or country cannot be heard in Federal court (Amendment 11), but this is a suit by a State against another State.
Cert procedures are as usual though. The Court will ask for briefs, then it may grant or deny cert. Denying certiorari in this case would be outrageous. Texas has standing and an injury. There can be no circuit split because such cases always go to the SCOTUS directly, so appeals courts cannot be involved and so cannot disagree with each other. The only grounds for dismissing this case or denying cert. would be if all the claims are baseless, but that would be outrageous. So I expect they'll grant cert. I expect oral arguments.
The Court could schedule oral arguments after December 14, or even after December 19, but that would be outrageous as well. I expect they won't do that.
The Court could fail to rule before those deadlines, and that would be less outrageous because they could claim that they didn't have enough time, but then if they rule correctly the legislatures could still name their own Electors, then we'd have some States with two slates of Electoral College votes and a fight in Congress on January 6. However, if there's multiple Elector slates, Congress can pick which ones to accept using majority votes, so if we haven't taken back the House and kept the Senate, and even if we do (RINOs), we lose.
We can only force a contingent election (which Trump would win, RINOs and all) if no candidate reaches 270 EVs, and that can only happen if the Court rules before December 19.
We're nowhere near being out of the woods. The Insurrection Act option must still be on the table. Count your ammo, not your chickens.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State is involved (Article III, Section 2, second paragraph). Suits against States where the plaintiff is a citizen of another State or country cannot be heard in Federal court (Amendment 11), but this is a suit by a State against another State.
Cert procedures are as usual though. The Court will ask for briefs, then it may grant or deny cert. Denying certiorari in this case would be outrageous. Texas has standing and an injury. There can be no circuit split because such cases always go to the SCOTUS directly, so appeals courts cannot be involved and so cannot disagree with each other. The only grounds for dismissing this case or denying cert. would be if all the claims are baseless, but that would be outrageous. So I expect they'll grant cert. I expect oral arguments.
The Court could schedule oral arguments after December 14, or even after December 19, but that would be outrageous as well. I expect they won't do that.
The Court could fail to rule before those deadlines, and that would be less outrageous because they could claim that they didn't have enough time, but then if they rule correctly the legislatures could still name their own Electors, then we'd have some States with two slates of Electoral College votes and a fight in Congress on January 6. However, if there's multiple Elector slates, Congress can pick which ones to accept using majority votes, so if we haven't taken back the House and kept the Senate, and even if we do (RINOs), we lose.
We can only force a contingent election (which Trump would win, RINOs and all) if no candidate reaches 270 EVs, and that can only happen if the Court rules before December 19.
We're nowhere near being out of the woods. The Insurrection Act option must still be on the table. Count your ammo, not your chickens.