After reviewing the case and listening to an interview with co-plaintiff Parnell I see why SCOTUS denied injunctive relief. The case doesn't propose possible remedies at law. Instead the Complaint requests SCOTUS propose remedy. That's lazy lawyering, and seeks to have SCOTUS encroach into the only legitimate Constitutional remedy, which lies with the state legislatures.
To be clear, SCOTUS DID NOT dismiss. The case remains on the docket.
I haven't read the ruling yet, but I understand the PA case was dismissed for lack of standing.
An inter state suit, Original Standing, that rightly asserts national disenfranchisement based on the unconstitutional actions of a few states can hardly be dismissed for lack of standing.
I don't think that standing was at issue in the PA or TX cases today. The PA decision wasn't really a ruling but instead a one-line rejection given without any explanation. The Supreme Court is obligated to give the TX case at least a perfunctory response due to the original jurisdiction issue.
Levin said that since the court denied the injuction in the PA case, it is not looking good for what follows. He interprets the denial as an indication of how the court is leaning and its implications for the certiorari in the PA case and the outcome of the TX case. He thinks that the court considers a Biden presidency to be inevitable and is therefore fearful of retribution from a Biden administration.
Thanks. Interestingly, Jay Sekulow, who I have a great deal of respect for and who has a remarkable record of arguing and winning SCOTUS cases, suggested yesterday that he thinks this is THE case we've been waiting for on this election debacle.
I find the suggestion that the SCOTUS justices fear Joe Biden incredulous, at best.
I hope that Sekulow is right about the Texas case having real efficacy. I imagine that the court regards court-packing as a real possibility and is trying not to make any waves. It is not clear as to how big a factor that is. However, I am very sure that the general cultural momentum behind the "reality" of "President-elect" Biden is something that the court is very fearful of opposing.
Tell Frank to stop being a doomfag. Texas is going to save this country and patriots will rejoice.
I pray that is what happens!
Throwaway_Test,
After reviewing the case and listening to an interview with co-plaintiff Parnell I see why SCOTUS denied injunctive relief. The case doesn't propose possible remedies at law. Instead the Complaint requests SCOTUS propose remedy. That's lazy lawyering, and seeks to have SCOTUS encroach into the only legitimate Constitutional remedy, which lies with the state legislatures.
To be clear, SCOTUS DID NOT dismiss. The case remains on the docket.
Thanks for the response. I did not know the part about pushing so much responsibility onto the court.
You're very welcome.
I hope you're right with respect to the incorporation into the Texas suit!
Will be grouped into the texas suit. One line because it is being handled elsewhere
You are arguing against yourself: you are correct when you state, “ We can not live under a stolen regime.”
Levin, among others, made the same point regarding the potential degradation of the court.
Hopefully AR's AG pledging "support in all legally appropriate manners" and MO's AG pledging to lead the efforts to support Texas will help push them in the right direction. Also hopefully even more states will sign on.
I hope that is a good sign, but they will make me more confident when they actually commit something substantive.
I haven't read the ruling yet, but I understand the PA case was dismissed for lack of standing.
An inter state suit, Original Standing, that rightly asserts national disenfranchisement based on the unconstitutional actions of a few states can hardly be dismissed for lack of standing.
What was Levin's specific argument?
I don't think that standing was at issue in the PA or TX cases today. The PA decision wasn't really a ruling but instead a one-line rejection given without any explanation. The Supreme Court is obligated to give the TX case at least a perfunctory response due to the original jurisdiction issue.
Levin said that since the court denied the injuction in the PA case, it is not looking good for what follows. He interprets the denial as an indication of how the court is leaning and its implications for the certiorari in the PA case and the outcome of the TX case. He thinks that the court considers a Biden presidency to be inevitable and is therefore fearful of retribution from a Biden administration.
Thanks. Interestingly, Jay Sekulow, who I have a great deal of respect for and who has a remarkable record of arguing and winning SCOTUS cases, suggested yesterday that he thinks this is THE case we've been waiting for on this election debacle.
I find the suggestion that the SCOTUS justices fear Joe Biden incredulous, at best.
Thanks for the follow up.
We shall see, eh?
I hope that Sekulow is right about the Texas case having real efficacy. I imagine that the court regards court-packing as a real possibility and is trying not to make any waves. It is not clear as to how big a factor that is. However, I am very sure that the general cultural momentum behind the "reality" of "President-elect" Biden is something that the court is very fearful of opposing.