Honestly? Not enough poverty. Widespread poverty is the one thing that seems to precede virtually all revolutions. Nine missed meals from collapse and all that.
I had to look that one up. I was aware that Arizona was passing legislation to improve election integrity (e.g. voters must vote in their own precinct), but I missed the fact that the Democrats were opposing Arizona in court. In retrospect, it seems like an obvious move for the Dems.
Edit: Doh! And now I visit TheDonald front page, and it's right there, stickied. :-)
You don't seem to understand the WHY they didn't take it.
So let me help you:
The court itself is in a shitty position with that case. Because if they chose to hear it, they'd look bias. The judges that Trump appointed would look like they're just extensions of Trump and there to do what Trump says. That's NOT what they're there for. They're there to rule on facts and they're there to interpret the constitution. They don't get involved in political spats. They don't get involved in kingmaking. They are REQUIRED to remain neutral and as thus don't like to pick up politically fueled cases.
The court was put in a shitty position with the election challenges. The court isn't supposed to be political, they're supposed to be apolitical. So they looked at it, and to them, chose the lesser of evils. Because no matter what they're going to seem bias and political. By choosing to not hear it, they chose the less political route.
Was it the right route? No, I don't think so, but I understand why they didn't want to take the case up. Did Paxton write a clever as shit brief? He did. And it was compelling. But it wasn't declined on merit. It was declined because the court didn't want to be put in a position of picking sides. That's what the state legislature is for.
On top of all of that, you seem to gloss over the fact that even if it WAS heard, the justices that wrote the dissenting brief said themselves they would not have ruled in Texas' favor. None of them would have.
"We chose not to do the right thing, because it might hurt our reputation" is not a good excuse. When the very existence of the country is at stake, it's time to get political! The Supreme Court, as the defender of the Constitution, is political by its very nature -- the top of the third branch of government.
Edit: Justices Thomas and Alito both disagreed with you:
Thomas and Alito are Patriots!
The rest can meet the gallows for all I care...
The rest are communist
This cannot be disputed any longer.
BTW, did anyone else notice that Trump's SCOTUS appointments came from a list provided by a supposedly Conservative watchdog group?
The corruption and controlled opposition are everywhere!
Well, the Koch brothers are huge donors to The Federalist Society, so I wouldn't exactly call it conservative.
Should've gotten a list from Judicial Watch.
When such evils become insufferable...
The Supreme Court is one of the most corrupt arms of our federal government!
Why are they still there?
Honestly? Not enough poverty. Widespread poverty is the one thing that seems to precede virtually all revolutions. Nine missed meals from collapse and all that.
Walmart was out of lunchables for over a week in Texas because of the big freeze. We were close.
Don’t forget how much the gas prices have gone up for Texans now, too!
I had to look that one up. I was aware that Arizona was passing legislation to improve election integrity (e.g. voters must vote in their own precinct), but I missed the fact that the Democrats were opposing Arizona in court. In retrospect, it seems like an obvious move for the Dems.
Edit: Doh! And now I visit TheDonald front page, and it's right there, stickied. :-)
Cool. Thanks.
Keep saying it:
SCOTUS has no standing.
I think the Supreme Court building and the neighborhoods of seven Supreme Court "justices" should be papered with these pamphlets.
Yes please. :-)
You don't seem to understand the WHY they didn't take it.
So let me help you:
The court itself is in a shitty position with that case. Because if they chose to hear it, they'd look bias. The judges that Trump appointed would look like they're just extensions of Trump and there to do what Trump says. That's NOT what they're there for. They're there to rule on facts and they're there to interpret the constitution. They don't get involved in political spats. They don't get involved in kingmaking. They are REQUIRED to remain neutral and as thus don't like to pick up politically fueled cases.
The court was put in a shitty position with the election challenges. The court isn't supposed to be political, they're supposed to be apolitical. So they looked at it, and to them, chose the lesser of evils. Because no matter what they're going to seem bias and political. By choosing to not hear it, they chose the less political route.
Was it the right route? No, I don't think so, but I understand why they didn't want to take the case up. Did Paxton write a clever as shit brief? He did. And it was compelling. But it wasn't declined on merit. It was declined because the court didn't want to be put in a position of picking sides. That's what the state legislature is for.
On top of all of that, you seem to gloss over the fact that even if it WAS heard, the justices that wrote the dissenting brief said themselves they would not have ruled in Texas' favor. None of them would have.
"We chose not to do the right thing, because it might hurt our reputation" is not a good excuse. When the very existence of the country is at stake, it's time to get political! The Supreme Court, as the defender of the Constitution, is political by its very nature -- the top of the third branch of government.
Edit: Justices Thomas and Alito both disagreed with you:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-texass-election-lawsuit-failed-the-constitution/