983
Comments (33)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
16
Marshall2 16 points ago +19 / -3

SCOTUS already had this case as an intervener and dismissed it. Had SCOTUS actually wanted to hear it, they could have dropped all suits but his. They did not and summarily dismissed his suit.

SCOTUS SUCTOS

20
litux 20 points ago +20 / -0

They refused to hear the case because seven Justices agreed that Texas had no standing.

Maybe only three or four Justices will have the audacity to claim that President Trump has no standing either.

7
generated_name 7 points ago +7 / -0

To my understanding, the court has to allow someone to intervene or support in a suit. They dismissed the Texas case; so none of the other states or Trump ever got the chance to join in, even though the filed rewuests to be able to.

1
TheSwiftPepe 1 point ago +2 / -1

No, their judgement was that no state has any business interfering in the election of any other state. Texas was the plaintiff. Trump had filed a motion but because Texas had no standing, the motions were all dismissed.

Honestly, it could come back to haunt us one day if they had ruled that states can interfere in other elections. One state could mandate IDs and other states could sue for "voter suppression".

SCOTUS told us how to win in their statement. It has to be filed by someone with standing. That was the original plan anyways. The Texas thing was exciting but it was never the plan.

0
Marshall2 0 points ago +1 / -1

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL action by those STATES DOES harm every STATE and EVERY PERSON IN EVERY STATE.

SCOTUS SCREWED UP.