Forgive a european for the strange question but doesn't this ruling cause a massive problem constitutionally?
Let's assume trump wins the rest of the cases in SCOTUS and gets reelected. Why wouldn't texas still want to secede?
Is there any way for SCOTUS to say "Whoops we were wrong" after the fact, or otherwise change this precedent, or will trump have to impeach 7 of the 9 justices to keep things from falling apart afterwards?
Texan here. The deal is that Texas has not been injured in fact as the electors have not yet been chosen. You can’t go to the court and ask them to do something based upon what might happen. It doesn’t work that way. The SCOTUS did not dismiss upon merit. It simply said that Texas had not yet been injured. Now, the Texas Attorney General and others likely knew this would happen, but apparently this is something that is done to signal to the court and others what is coming. Once the electors are selected, Texas can resubmit.
I don’t think it matters much anyway as I think the military is the answer. Followers of Q know that the military is the only answer as it is the only way to control the outcome. This plan was set into motion years ago and the outcome wasn’t going to be left up to the decisions of others.
Yep although I commented above. I believe your explanation is a far better one and is more accurate to US law.
I’m learning this stuff as fast as the rest of you. Ha!
Could you point me to more info on this? The court order was very brief and didn't mention the specific reason they had no standing.
Nooooooop
I don't think so.
I don't think any of the lawsuits will determine the election result.
If legal cases were going to determine the result, then the tech giants wouldn't be censoring us like a police state.
The media wouldn't be screaming at us that the election was perfect.
No, they are much more worried about public opinion.
Don't focus so much on legal cases, they are a source of evidence that can be shared.
I don't think that our President wants to squeak by disqualifying some votes in a couple states.
I think he wants to win bigly with the country knowing that he won in a landslide.
Don't think so. Here the SCOTUS ruled they don't have Standing: injured party, (Texas, others) injurers, (responsible) and the ability to remedy. Seems SCOTUS said: We cannot fix this..." IMHO.
Standing is a legal principle in many Countries around the world. SCOTUS did not look at the evidence or merits of the evidence. The problem was "standing" to bring a case. You must have standing to sue. The Texas case must be filed by someone or a class of people who have standing.
Yes - doesn't this set precedent that states don't have standing to sue other states over violations of the constitution in a federal election? Isn't that a big deal?
They still have the loophole that lack of standing was based on timing. The injury hasn’t happened yet.
I’m not sure that’s what they meant but it’ll be the excuse we use to believe there’s still a constitution. (Like we do with our 2A)
I don't think SCOTUS wants to set the precedent that they can decide an election by one state suing multiple other states. They want each state to solve their issues through their own state legislatures.
SCOTUS rejected the Texas case on essentially a procedural issue, had nothing to do with the evidence or who was right.