6654
Comments (471)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
61
zanonks 61 points ago +69 / -8

I concur. The closest I have found to a reasonable explanation for not taking the case is that there is no harm yet because electoral college hasn't voted.

The courts up and down the line being able to just say there's no standing without hearing these cases is what's going to force the military to step in or the people to rebel.

105
deleted 105 points ago +107 / -2
41
zanonks 41 points ago +42 / -1

Exactly the BS I was trying to point out. Thanks for the assist!

29
deleted 29 points ago +29 / -0
17
MAGALogic 17 points ago +17 / -0

Yup.

This is what the lower courts did. This is what the SC may do as well.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
21
HoganP 21 points ago +23 / -2

It was purely on standing. Make of that what you may, but the reading of tea leaves with these things get a bit out of hand.

What I take from it falls somewhere between the court saying "Not strong enough, try again" and "Fuck you." With a slight leaning towards the latter considering disputes between states originate in the court and this is about a presidential election.

29
zanonks 29 points ago +29 / -0

Tea leaves it is.

The 'standing' of Texas seemed pretty clear in that states disregarded the constitution to elect the presidential candidate they wanted. In a system where the states have agreed how this works, that is serious harm and there's no other court for Texas to go to.

I would hate to teach constitutional law after this fiasco...

17
Philhelm 17 points ago +17 / -0

Constitutional Law won't be on the curriculum anyway.

3
JoePlumber 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah they need to find time for Transgender Studies 401 and Science of Soy 305.

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0