I know I am going to get flamed hard for this, but here it goes anyway. A couple of things for starters...
-
Lawsuits need a plaintiff who can demonstrate that they have been harmed by the actions of another person or legal entity.
-
Supreme Court decisions set precedent for time immemorial. The Marbury v Madison and U.S. v Schecter Poultry decisions of long ago still shape the law today. Roe v Wade will likely never be overturned outright because it became precedent once it was decided. Pains me to say it, but bad decisions are rarely overturned, though there are the Dred Scott decisions that eventually are overturned.
Now the reason why the SCOTUS did not take this case.
-
Standing. Texas was trying a novel way to show that the voters in THEIR state were harmed by the actions of another state. Even though Texas elections went off without much of a hitch, the idea that the Texas is harmed by the election in Pennsylvania was a serious legal stretch. Alito likely was a bit miffed that PA ignored his ruling on ballot date handling and Thomas is just ready for a good fight, but the rest of the court simply could not make the connection to the point that the suit could go forth.
-
Merits of the case. No mention made of the merits of the case. This is important. The issue was WHO the plaintiff was, not what the complaint was.
-
Precedent. This, I think, is the biggy. We have seen how the left screwed themselves when they reduced the number of senate votes required for the procedure of confirming judges. What THEY did for THEIR purposes bit them on the ass in Trump's first term. Their short-sightedness set Trump up for unprecedented successes in the area of judicial appointments. Had, the SCOTUS set the precedent that the Texas 'end around' play was legitimate legal theory, take off your partisan hats and imagine a world in which New York, California, Washington St., and Massachusetts have LEGAL PRECEDENT to go after Ohio, Missouri, Texas, and Florida based upon the same reasoning that would have allowed Texas to go after PA. Munch on that for a while.
So, the answer is simple. The SCOTUS needs a plaintiff from INSIDE the states whose vote WAS diluted through voter fraud. THOSE are the people who were harmed. Gore v Bush applies directly to the forehead of that problem.
The Texas v Pennsylvania case was brought PRIMARILY because it WAS a way to hop over all state and lower Federal courts since it involved an issue between states. That was MAIN REASON this was tried. State v State ALWAYS goes to the SCOTUS for adjudication.
It was a novel idea. But it could have set a really nasty precedent for future generations to have to deal with for decades or even centuries to come.
Cliff notes...
-
SCOTUS rejected the case because Texas could not adequately prove that Pennsylvania fraud hurt their state.
-
SCOTUS made no determination on the MERITS of the case.
-
Had they TAKEN this case, say hello to a real can of worms in every Federal election as far as the eye can see.
Well, we are about to test your points.
Now Powell and Trump’s legal team filed several lawsuits with the SCOTUS suggested recipe.
Then we will know where do they stand.
The only thing that worries me however is that all those judges that were pumped through we’re done so by McConnell. What if him and his Chinese wife are compromised and everyone they put in there was also compromised. Why did the CIA director run to McConnell’s office a week after the election?
A pattern that people should be seeing right now is that the legan standings and the battles thereof get way more effective after every major step of the election process.
For example, 'called Biden as president Elect'. Thing got hot. State moves to certify. Things got hotter.
States officially certifies. Things get even hotter.
State legislators hold hearings. Things get way hotter.
Everytime an official action happens, more power is given to the plaintiffs. Look at Sidney's warnings to those who certify - she tells them bluntly that they're complicit to ths fraud if they do. That's a very serious allegation.
The same applies here. Texas need only to have its electors be the plaintiffs and it need be only past the 6th of January or perhaps the 14th of December (although the 14th of Dec is arbitrary really) for 'damages' to be proven.
If we're going to say we were stabbed, we'd need to prove it was we, the victim, who was actually stabbed (obvious wound).
Technically speaking, PA, MI, WI and GA have not truly broken the law yet. they could actually correct themselves. Kemp could call a special session for example. He likely won't, but the point is HE COULD. And if such a session was granted, there's still time for the Legislature to amend it's position and announce that they contest their election. Or, all the electors could actually cast their own votes. What would happen if the electors just, went rogue and cast their own votes? Would SCOTUS say they have standing then?
Perhaps
well done!!
Agreed, especially on point #3.
I have no reason to believe that our three newest SC Justices were wrong about the decision or that they were motivated by anything but their view of the law.
Good reasoning. This is how I see it to. The Supreme Court was not malicious towards us, it just told us to approach them with a different plaintiff(s).
It is though that Texans do not get to the point of suffering damage from the way the other states ran their elections, until the electors are elected.
That could be the case but I would not bet the farm on that. State v State in Federal elections is still very treacherous ground.
Agreed.
Also this is a parallel effort.
Simultaneous plans are still in effect.
Good post
So we need plaintiffs from PA, WI, MI, and GA
Yes. But these cases take time to reach the SCOTUS. I think Giuliani has cases in PA, GA and MI and something about NV too.
The real question, as I see it now, is HOW solid is 12/14? Some hold this date as a drop-dead de facto brick wall that cannot be taken back once it is crossed. Others say that date is actually more of a customary date that has no real legal meaning.
The media would have us believe that the 14th is set in stone. I think we are likely to see that idea be challenged in a few days.
The 12/14 date comes from federal statute. The constitution says electors must have voted by 1/6 when the new congress meets, and that electors must vote on the same day nationwide. If the electors vote on 12/14, and that is becoming increasingly likely, we run the risk of a constitutional crisis on 1/6 if we get multiple slates of electors coming from the contested states.
In the scenarios where we have multiple slates of electors, it comes down to a feud between the president of the Senate (Mike Pence) and the speaker of the house (Pelosi) over which slate of electors, if any, to accept.
Thanks for that clarification.
I bet that Federal Statute was at one time considered to be a 'far out' date in the scheme of things. Seems like a very tight and rather capricious deadline TWICE in the last 20 years.