I was surprised how fast SCOTUS rejected the Texas case, but it has dawned on me that if almost all justices wanted to hurt Trump this is the exact opposite of what they would have done. They could have dragged it out until Monday at least, or even longer, beyond the date of the electors voting.
Instead of that, we got the rejection very fast. And the explanation as to why it was rejected was included in it, which helps anyone who wants to file a new lawsuit that is "corrected". Just as Sidney Powell did in all four states, by the way: https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1337597433283571712. And the ruling came before the weekend, which gives two extra days to work on the new cases.
And if you check the ruling it even mentioned that the standing thing was the only detail they have ruled on, as ruling on any other details - such as the unconstitutionality of the actions taken by the four states - was moot.
Just food for thought.
Possible. Some legal aides have said there was a lot of shouting amongst SCOTUS in their "private deliberation"... which could be heard well outside the room. Wish we could've heard what was said.
This is the crux of the argument...
State Legislatures were bypassed. State Executives overreached, passed voidable laws, and told their citizens to pound sound in the lower courts...
Where are voters to be represented then?? When the it's all fubar, It's SCOTUS' job to take those cases. It's their exact role.
The very efficacy of the law was violated. It impacted a federal election, where States who DID follow the laws are impacted, because those elections are in contingency now.
This wasn't "conducting"...State executive actions were unconstitutional and the State themselves is not going to hold themselves accountable.
If Texas and Trump have no standing in any court then nobody can ever contest an election.
Exactly. If there is no standing, Louisiana can just send 46678432 fucking electors because fuck it.
Yup.
Texas lawsuit was a blow because of the 2-7...But it did put a lot of attention onto the courts...That they tried to not be part of. They played themselves.
You perhaps unwittingly hit it on the head. The SCOTUS literally can not rule on a disagreement between states.. until there is standing.
Intentionally or unintentionally, it was a test run. And the OP highlights why we remain hopeful: the SCOTUS turned it around in light-speed time. They know.
As a pseudo-law pede (no JD but have worked in law and policy for over a decade) I'm not pleased with the ruling. It was nice of them to move quickly, but the justification was specious and the two dissenters indicated they only wanted to hear the case would have provided any relief.
SCOTUS should not have punted on this. It was an original jurisdiction case. At a minimum they needed to hold arguments even if they planned on denying it for whatever reason (which they should not have planned in advance, but did).
Don't trust SCOTUS.
Well electors vote tomorrow so it’s more like the teachers telling you you’re close but the test is over?
This. I thought we would have learned this after 5 years of "TRUMP'S CLOSEST FRIEND JUST SAID HE SAID JSOFIJSOIJO:IASJGIOJAA"
It's fucking bullshit that these aren't livestreamed. We deserve to hear their discussions I believe. Every single American is effected by SCOTUS hearings. It's fucking gay, to say the least.
Source? sounds spicy
I saw it around here last night. I don't usually accuse people of LARPing, but I think it sounded a little too much what we would write were we to write a play script of what we imagine the justices would say.
(I.E. Roberts freaking out over riots, and Clarence Thomas calmly saying: "John, this would mean the end of Democracy." )
Sounds like a bad fanfic
they calmly heard thomas when everyone was yelling? sure.
I thought everything was done online now because of the covid crap? Wouldn't they all be in separate places
Conceptually, it makes sense, given that Friday was meant to be an in-conference day for the Justices, so if there was going to be a discussion and disagreement then that is when it was going to happen per their calendar.
If you've had the unfortunate luck to be stuck in traffic next to some muppet talking on their phone connected to their car, you can readily understand how easy it can be to hear far more than you ever wanted to in a teleconference setup.
They do not deliberate in person post Covid. All remote.
Exactly why Alito and Thomas dissented in the way they did to expand on and signal this specific point. Kav, Gor, Barret stayed out as appointees to maintain neutrality. The case has merit but they need to assert their coequal status in a situation like this. The anxiety is killing everyone and combined with all the doom and disinfo, it’s easy to get lost in the noise.
I do think we will be heading for a tough times in the months ahead, but, GEOTUS will be in charge.
Agree with the first sentence, but unsure about the other three justices. Hopefully you are right.
I’m nit sure how they will ultimately rule, but, I think they wanted the perception of neutrality.
Don't know about that, pretty much everyone already considers them biased, one way or another.
Not a time for neutrality. Zero need for recusal.
Same here
The three standing out wouldn't be neutral, that action would be the deciding vote. At least one of them has to be a turncoat even if the other two followed for the appearance of neutrality
It reminds me of some evangelical stuff I heard years back.
Basically there are three groups of people. Those who believe. Those who don't; and those who sit on the fence and haven't committed yet. The only problem is the Devil owns the fence.
Whenever I encounter a situation where someone is called upon to take a stand and the stand they take is to sit on the fence / take no action I am reminded of who owns the fence.
While I believe most of your points stand, I do not think that it going fast is that surprising. Monday is the day electors vote so its pretty important to know if the case is gonna be taken by then, and the speed they rejected it was just as fast as PA case which is dead in the water now.
True, but didn't this effectively give a chance to Powell to refile the case four times, with the states, with Trump as the injured party, exactly based on the points made in the SCOTUS ruling, and before the electors vote?
Powell's cases aren't the cases to look for IMO. The case SCOTUS wants is constitutionality and not fraud. If SCOTUS actually only denied it for 'standing' (which is usually only used an excuse to not take a case), then they want Trump to refile the same case under his name
Possible, also, until the electors have actually voted the injury did not happen yet, at least some people claim so.
Maybe, but if SCOTUS actually wanted to help, they could've waited until monday because the injury happens tomorrow
Could Texas refile or file a new case afterwards? Or any other state file a similar case?
That's where I'm not sure. Didn't the justices also deny the case because they don't care about how other states did their elections? If so then Trump has to individually file the same case targeted in each state
Not a lawyer and not even a US pede, so I am very much uncertain. But that could also be a double edged sword for later happenings.
Also, Sidney Powell did file in each state afterwards: https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1337597433283571712
Link to those filings?
Don't have the link to the actual filings, but this might do for you: https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1337597433283571712
What about the concept off texas refiling if Joe Biden wins 270 electoral votes because at that time then Texas work have been injured? Is that not what they meant by not having standing? Because they hadn't yet been injured?
What are you talking about with PA? Only thing that was denied was emergency injunction....
How can PA be dead in the water when it was the most obvious of fraud and constitutional cases ?
This is infuriating.
It is entirely possible that those saying they have cucked out are right. If true, that is said, with them being SCOTUS and all.
I hope after everyone certifies (or pretends to) tomorrow, that Texas refiles now that they'll have standing!
I don't think it was rejected due to injury. It was rejected due to Texas not having a say in another state's election laws, supposedly.
Maybe I should have explained better.
According to what I understand, in order for Texas to have standing under Article III of the constitution, they have to have their voters votes be directly muted, or injured, by the other 4 states. Because the 4 states in question haven't certified or sent their electors yet, Texas has no standing in the eyes of the law (and this is correct).
It was also filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.... as opposed to filing a bill of complaint directly (another technicality). Not only has Sidney refiled mini versions of the Texas case in each state with Trump as the Plantiff, I think after Monday when the battle really begins, Texas etc can refile (if they want) under SCOTUS and they've signaled that they'd be willing to hear the case.
So tomorrow is when things start to get interesting
Yeah, but the odd thing is that they presented a motion(?) / part of their case which demonstrated purely at the state-to-state level (i.e. the role of the Senate and the VP choice) and where the state is the party, not an individual voter, and that seemed (to the uneducated) to make a solid argument.
Right. There's no excuse; SCOTUS is cowardly. We don't want to rely on them.
All I know is that I'm not educated enough to know who or what was right with that particular case.
I do take solace in the number of states and other parties (including Citizens United!) that came out to file in support of Texas. That had to have sent a message no matter what.
It was selected because other states idiocy can't injure Texas apparently .
Can they? Don't understand the US legal system enough to know.
They can ! Just have to wait for the "injury" to occur I believe (so states certify and try to send their electors)
Yes!
Can be. We will have to wait and see.
Based on the fact that they were denied standing Friday, they'd be denied standing again until after the 1/6 official count.
At which point, it would be moot, so the case would be denied once more.
No, they said one state has no interest in how another state picks their electors. Same applies to Trump, since they would have allowed him to intervene if that would fix it.
U know maybe you are onto something. Maybe not. But it's clever.
I think SCOTUS was just trying to get out of the way of whatever Trump is (hopefully) planning.
I find the notion that they have cucked out more likely, than this getting out of his way scenario.
Well they punted which I think is bad, but I guess it means it gives President Trump no choice but to go forward with other paths. Up to this point the primary pathway has been through the legal system. I believe that isn't the primary pathway anymore.
I would love to be proven wrong but that is my sense of things as of today.
I like the way you think!
Read the decision. It sounds a lot like legal hot/cold game. Like Alito and Thomas were trying to get the team to file the one they could actually get behind.
Alito and Thomas wrote the decision. Their patriotism is beyond contestation. The other junior trump appointees don’t yet share that. SCOTUS. Has to be careful. Never know who will be on it in 50 years. Crazy new precedent is dangerous.
Then they finish by saying “this decision is final and does not impact any future cases”. They’re helping but quietly and within their means.It’s up to team trump to pick up the queues and bring the RIGHT case.
This is in line with my own thinking. Hopefully you are right.
Pray that you are correct
Who is the plaintiff, Sidney is not still working officially for Trump, no?
She never did.
I think Trump is named as the injured party.
This is a good analysis here. I thought the same thing
I'm hoping it was just for optics.
Don't know if they would do that, don't people consider them biased anyway?
I mainly meant the plaintiffs but those who sided with the majority could know there's something bigger down the pipeline.
Your on to something
True
I get where you are coming from, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. They rejected it because they didnt want to hear it. Which fits exactly with their general reluctance to get in the middle of an election fight, especially a messy one like this one. Their action, or inaction if you please, also mirrors the narrative that Trump should just accept that he lost, the people have spoken, lets have unity, a Biden/Harris presidency is inevitable, etc.
I understand wanting to keep hope alive. But facts are facts. SCOTUS is for SCOTUS, not Trump, even though he gave three of them winning lottery tickets. If they rule for us in time to turn things around, i'll change my opinion. As it standss now, they have picked the side they are on and its not ours.
Fair points all around.
It’s not some masterplan nonsense. It’s that they don’t want to have Biden and Co. go after them if they rule in Trump’s favor and the electoral college cucks out. For as miserable as their lives have been, they are going to get removed from court, impeached, tried in the court of public opinion, or have the courts literally stacked against them by people hostile towards them. They chickened out. I think it’s sad; it’s a self preservation thing.
Everyone needs to stop looking for “little signs,” because they aren’t there.
If you want signs... our legislature and judiciary branches are compromised. There’s your signs.
Now the remaining question, is how compromised branches of the military are...
Entirely possible. It sad, if this is the case, since this is the SCOTUS.
Thing is, couldn’t they have discussed this behind the scenes before filing? It’s almost as if there are no mutual friends between Republicans and SCOTUS. Whatever the case, this is beyond my IQ level. I’ll still the hold the line no matter what.
And that is the best thing you can do. Trump is still fighting, so we cannot give up either.
They had a serious decision to make: should we take the reigns of our authority and guide history, or take a pass and allow the disharmony between states be resolved otherwise. This was a very consequential decision. They chose safety. Courageous stepping forward would have expanded their role considerably. I am not sure that expansion would be the best as they are not elected and have lifetime appointments.
Fair point.
However that very swiftness emboldens our enemies. Big tech censorship has ratcheted way up since the decision. It’s also a talking point for corporate media, libs, and even normies.
Fair point.
SCOTUS is NOT on our side. Enough with the "Optics are important" and "Rejecting the Texas case was all part of the plan". You are delusional.
I am not saying it was part of the plan. The case itself probably wasn't actually, at least it wasn't part of Trump's plan.
Possible or the opposite - they wanted to reject it before Monday
They could have rejected it just before the electors vote, but they did so while giving Trumps team the entire weekend to react. They also included the explanation as to why the case was rejected, and the very important information that they have not ruled on the contents of the case, only the standing.
Fair point
Ostentatiously demonstrated impartiality...
I agree.
It also "debooooonnnks" the idea that the Supreme Court is biased. They can point to this and say, "Hey, we're fair. No Trump bias, guys!"
Possible, but pretty much everyone considers them biased one way or another already.
I don't think they want to hurt anyone's chances. They just don't want to stick their necks out. They are looking out for themselves and themselves only.
Entirely possible, but they did so while giving Trumps team the entire weekend to react.
There was no explanation for the majority. Only reason it wasn’t two lines long are the two dissents. Only 2 of 9 bothered to explain.
Kill me quick isn’t winning.
And the explanation contained important information on why it was rejected, and also that only the standing part was ruled on, the rest - including whether what the states did was unconstitutional or not - was not.
I hope you're right, I'm not going after Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett like a lot of folks are doing, rather, I'd like to think they're saying, let the electors meet, then drop the bomb. Get them all in one place.
Like casting a net. Texas' Lawsuit wasn't apart of Trump's plan, however, it will aid it in the end. Because now Trump's legal team can see why it was rejected, and fix their own lawsuits accordingly.
I hope you are right too, we will see.
This is what I believe. I did not hop on any thread that called ACB and Kavanaugh traitors for this exact reason.
Then why didn’t they rule 5-4 instead of 2-7?
Hint: they are cowards who don’t want to save this country.
Don't understand the US system well enough to know, but since the electors have not voted yet the damage also has not occurred yet.
As for the objections by Alito and Thomas that could have very well been to convey information.
Obviously, you can also be right about them. Would be sad.
The problem is that the rejection was absurd in the first place. How can a state not have standing to bring another state to court, when the topic at hand is a federal election that affects all states? This was the case that was widely agreed upon to be The Big One, the one with the strongest and most well-reasoned arguments.
I wish I was as optimistic as you, but I sense that the SC punted because they don't want to be seen as the ones who "picked the winner". If Texas re-files (and I really hope we do, preferably with an entire section dedicated to calling John Roberts a spineless wimp) then we'll go from there. If the SC takes it up, then we're in new territory. But if they punt again, then they've confirmed their cowardice.
Fair points. I am absolutely not certain of anything I wrote, being unfamiliar with the US legal system, and not even being a US pede, but wanted to throw these ideas out.
They might refile after the electors vote, we will see.
They don’t want to “hurt” anyone. They want to do what all these fucking groups do, protect their own interests.
Entirely possible, but they did so while giving Trumps team the entire weekend to react. They also included the explanation as to why the case was rejected, and the very important information that they have not ruled on the contents of the case, only the standing.
Entirely possible that they simply cucked out. Which would be sad since they are the SCOTUS.
The SC has always motherfucked us whenever they can and and now you're saying they're not. When it is MOST crucial to deep state? You're saying "SC is really setting up 4d chess."
You sound like a beaten wife making excuses for her NFL-playing husband.
He's not going to change, honey. This is who is is.
Entirely possible, though I am not claiming they are playing 4D chess. I am claiming this way they gave Trumps team the entire weekend to react. They also included the explanation as to why the case was rejected, and the very important information that they have not ruled on the contents of the case, only the standing.
Again, could be entirely wrong on this. Maybe they just cucked out.
Says someone called hero..lol.
Anyone calling themselves hero, isnt.
Lol. My dad was in the Army for 28 years,27th division Wolfhound 8 purple hearts, master seargent at 21 yrs old. Go lay down. He did 4 tours in Vietnam and korea , combat infantry. Never once did he brag or call himself a hero. In fact he used to see guys bragging, he would say those are the ones who never actually did anything.
I sound like blm?? I think you have lost the plot.
Trump says a lot of things, and he often also misleads his enemies with what he says, so I wouldn't rule simply based on that.
If Texas did not have good standing, than ruling this fast was the best way for them to help Trump, especially with giving his team the entire weekend.
It is entirely possible that I am wrong about this, for sure.
Entirely possible, but these thoughts occurred to me, and simply wanted to share.
I don't follow Q.
I have not claimed any of this was 4D chess. This was not Trump's doing, any of it.