1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

emergency stop to something if no other legal option is available.

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

I thought so too. The actual case regarding the merit is still pending. Injunctive relief is only granted if no other legal options exist. The fact it was 9-0, likely indicates that other legal options exist, so this was procedural. Now, if you see SCOTUS flat out reject a case (not request for injunctive relief) based on the mail in process, that would be the major blow. So far, I have not seen that to be the case here.

9
handpeople 9 points ago +9 / -0

She totally got this wrong. The case is still going to be heard, the injunctive relief was denied. Not the same thing.

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thats not what is going on. The PA case merits will still be heard, just no injunctive relief. Decision is not related to TX. Also, SCOTUS did not "take" the TX case, its automatically added.

6
handpeople 6 points ago +7 / -1

Forgot one... Islam is the religion of peace.

5
handpeople 5 points ago +5 / -0

Not as big of a deal as it sounds. I thought it was at first, but its not as the headlines are making it out to be.

3
handpeople 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct. Its not devastating. Media of course thinks it is, but its really not as the dust is starting to settle. The case is still active, just no injunctive relief.

10
handpeople 10 points ago +10 / -0

Quite a title on that one. Quite some spin.

0
handpeople 0 points ago +2 / -2

SCOTUS did not take the case like everyone thinks. Original Jurisdiction cases automatically get added to docket. It does not indicate any measure of the viability of the TX lawsuit, or its potential fate.

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

I dont think you understand what happened.

by 303pede
2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

Injunctive relief is only granted when there is no other legal option available. Because a pending case with the same arguments is another available legal option that they intend to hear, its possible that was the reason injunctive relief was not granted.

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

No. People reading too much into TX case. Likely has more to do with pending PA Legislature case.

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

I thought as much too, but certification is not the end, only beginning of process. Its quite possible SCOTUS was thinking that certification does not need to be stopped as it in and of itself does not affect the merit of the PA case.

by 303pede
2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, But there is a case where PA legislature is suing based on similar reasoning. I think they may have denied injunctive relief because of this. TX is not involved in their decision making here.

11
handpeople 11 points ago +12 / -1

Right, but that happens automatically when states vs other states as only SCOTUS can hear such cases. Its not a decision by SCOTUS based on merit.

6
handpeople 6 points ago +6 / -0

Not really case will still be heard, they thought there were other legal remedies such as the actual case, so no injunction issued as there are still legal remedies available. Certification only starts the process, its not the end.

10
handpeople 10 points ago +17 / -7

They did not take the TX case. It gets added to docket because these types of cases can only be heard by SCOTUS. Getting added to the docket means shit. Get your facts straight before calling those who do, doomers.

2
handpeople 2 points ago +2 / -0

When a state brings Original Jurisdiction case, it automatically gets added to docket. That indicates nothing.

1
handpeople 1 point ago +1 / -0

Automatically gets added because state vs state original jurisdiction cases get put on the docket as SCOTUS is only one that can hear them. Getting on the docket means nothing.

0
handpeople 0 points ago +2 / -2

Insurrection Act is not going to happen.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›