Neil Gorsuch - Bill Clinton Brett Kavanaugh - Military Tribunals Amy Coney Barrett - Qualified Immunity
I still think there still a play with them. Yes the Texas case was upsetting but the game is playing out.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
Neil Gorsuch - Bill Clinton Brett Kavanaugh - Military Tribunals Amy Coney Barrett - Qualified Immunity
I still think there still a play with them. Yes the Texas case was upsetting but the game is playing out.
Think the TX case got thrown out because the 'crime' hasn't been committed yet. Once the electors from the fraud states vote, that's a crime!
That case was dismissed on standing, the reasoning was that Texas has no right to say how another state conducts it's elections and if something is to be done about those elections it's their own state supreme court's and their legislator's job to do so. You wouldn't want Cali or New York to tell your state how to act, would you?
That Texas case was still very useful though and it showed a great many things.
Here is the court's decision. All three sentences of it "The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot." So, the court's only reasoning for Texas not having standing is that they haven't demonstrated a reason for the court to hear the case. It says nothing about Texas not having a right to say how another State conducts its elections. I think once one or more of those states' electors cast their votes for Biden, then Texas can demonstrate that it's voter's were disenfranchised and its votes diluted. That may give them standing. There must be a remedy which does not rely on those rogue states to correct their own fraud. I suspect the TX case will be back before SCOTUS.
The Constitution says that individual state election laws are decided by their legislators, but the fraud states changed their rules by governors, lt. govs and attorneys general, so are not legal. Their fraud affected the value of elections in other states and the national outcome.
I agree with this, but at the same time, this is why these states have a Supreme court. I know the courts are packed with activists and so are the legislators, it's up to the people to change that government and to fight their government in courts and with impeachments.
Was that how SCOTUS defined "standing" in their decision to dismiss the case, because i also thought that they didn't have standing since there was not yet any harm done to Texas voters. As Hugo said, once the electors vote that will cause harm to Texas voters and I thought that Texas would then have standing.
Texas citizens have received injury, which is what the TX case argued, their votes were diluted by fraud, but hey there is no harm in suing again, if the electors must be chosen then so be it and hopefully the electors will choose Trump.
These are all Jr justices as well. They have no real say until a case is accepted. Roberts will tell them what's up when selecting cases.
A case that is ironclad needs to get to SCOTUS. Now the merits of the TX case were iron clad, but the standing was always dubious. We knew this.
Oh there is plenty of play there. Don't for a moment think the 3 Trump nominees sold him out. There is a lot more going on inside.
Thanks for seeing this. I too am disappointed, but think there is a bigger play here
Mmmm interesting 🤔