It was implied they would fail to take up the texas lawsuit because having 1 state tell another how to do elections went against states right to determine their own elections. Or are you talking about a different case?
But they litterally did their elections in contradiction to the constitution... I understand that argument but the SC is supposed to hear about disputes between states, including about this one. At least hear it.
2 judges wanted to actually hear the case. I can’t recall the 2 but it takes a majority to hear it. But nothing was said past that on the merits of it.
Wasnt it implied that the scotus would rule against us because of public opinion and scared of blm/antifa riots??
It was implied they would fail to take up the texas lawsuit because having 1 state tell another how to do elections went against states right to determine their own elections. Or are you talking about a different case?
But they litterally did their elections in contradiction to the constitution... I understand that argument but the SC is supposed to hear about disputes between states, including about this one. At least hear it.
2 judges wanted to actually hear the case. I can’t recall the 2 but it takes a majority to hear it. But nothing was said past that on the merits of it.