From reading their brief, they basically argue that while they think it was illegal for state legislatures and judges to change the laws ahead of the elections, they don't believe the Constitution gives the USSC the power to grant the relief Texas and POTUS want (i.e. ordering Defendant States to send a new slate of Electors).
They say a) USSC has to hear this case regardless and b) USSC should issue an opinion on the Electors Clause and how, if at all, it restricts anyone other than state legislatures from setting the "Time, Place and Manner Thereof" regarding elections. They also said they think the remedy requested may be too difficult for the USSC to grant.
I think they sound as though they are cucked as fuck, and yet I still think this brief helps in a few important ways and may be strategic in that it helps by:
Getting the case before the Court
Getting a final ruling on the Electors Clause and
Possibly guiding the final ruling from the USSC from a direct order to simple permission to choose new slates of Electors by State Legislators without a direct order from the USSC forcing them to do something. This would maintain separation of powers and allow the USSC a bit of political cover It may also give cuck Roberts an out to claim the USSC isn't overturning an election but rather providing guidance...which in turn gives State Legislature the political cover to do the right thing.
Not exactly sure but it says "Ohio believes its brief would be of value to the
Court’s decisionmaking process, and respectfully
moves for leave to file." so I guess they're just informing the court that they dont have a strong opinion either way.
It means they went through the trouble of filing a brief to stay neutral in the SCOTUS case from Texas. They could've just said nothing and been done with it but it looks like they're hedging their bets with this one
In plain speak what does this mean friend ?
From reading their brief, they basically argue that while they think it was illegal for state legislatures and judges to change the laws ahead of the elections, they don't believe the Constitution gives the USSC the power to grant the relief Texas and POTUS want (i.e. ordering Defendant States to send a new slate of Electors).
They say a) USSC has to hear this case regardless and b) USSC should issue an opinion on the Electors Clause and how, if at all, it restricts anyone other than state legislatures from setting the "Time, Place and Manner Thereof" regarding elections. They also said they think the remedy requested may be too difficult for the USSC to grant.
I think they sound as though they are cucked as fuck, and yet I still think this brief helps in a few important ways and may be strategic in that it helps by:
ohio tries to be swtizerland remain nuetreal and profit!
remain hopefull and hoping there will be profit from like Switzerland profited from Jewish victims of the holocaust their possesions
Not exactly sure but it says "Ohio believes its brief would be of value to the Court’s decisionmaking process, and respectfully moves for leave to file." so I guess they're just informing the court that they dont have a strong opinion either way.
It means they went through the trouble of filing a brief to stay neutral in the SCOTUS case from Texas. They could've just said nothing and been done with it but it looks like they're hedging their bets with this one