Honest question.... let's say that the SCOTUS rules that Texas can sue other states based on having a say in how other states enforce their election laws, and how other states choose their electors.
Does this set a precedent that opens things up for other states to sue Texas next year, saying that they do not like how Texas enforces abortion laws, or how Texas enforces gun ownership laws?
There's a lot of corruption going on all over the place, but if SCOTUS has to choose between which election fraud case to hear, is it wrong of them to choose a stronger case and not choose the Texas case? I'm seriously wanting to hear more lawyers weigh in on this, in terms of legal precedents...?
Is it Michelle or Michael?
You can download YT videos to your personal computer by changing the "be" in youtube.com to "10" (ie. ten) in the URL. This takes you to a different website that lets you download that video as an MP4 file.
Of course this only helps us watch the videos later, but it does not solve the issue of needing online communications platforms that are not controlled by corrupt people.
Sure. I'm not an attorney, but apparently the SCOTUS routinely refuses to hear 99% of the cases they are sent. And they tend to reject weaker cases so they can focus on stronger cases about the same issue.
My biggest problem about this situation was that I was "pinning all my hopes" on this case, because I was told it was "the big one". But maybe that was totally false, and was hyped up by well-meaning conservatives who were not very educated about the legal issues involved in all this? Not sure, just guessing here.
Here is something I just wrote in another thread:
"As I understand it, the Texas case is about Texas saying they need to have a say in how other states enforce their election laws. And that Texas needs to have a say in how other states choose their "electors".
Right? In my opinion this is not a very strong position. If the SCOTUS ruled in Texas's favor, saying yes, from now on states can sue each other because they disagree with how other states enforce their internal laws, then what is to stop other states from suing Texas in 2021, because they disagree with how Texas handles gun control laws? Or because they disagree with how Texas enforces abortion laws?
From the perspective of these justices who have spent their careers on "legal precedents" and are probably accustomed to ignoring the news media and outside pressure, their refusal to hear the Texas case might make a lot more sense than it initially did to me when I first heard about it yesterday, because I was coming at the issue from the perspective of ignoring legal precedents, and just wanting to stop the fraud as quickly as possible so we can give the maximum penalty possible under law to everyone who can be shown to have engaged in election fraud and election tampering...
But if I was a justice who took my job seriously, I would absolutely refuse to hear the Texas case... unless I am missing something."
I've only seen comments from a single person with legal training about this--right here on this website last night.
As I understand it, the Texas case is about Texas saying they need to have a say in how other states enforce their election laws. And that Texas needs to have a say in how other states choose their "electors".
Right? In my opinion this is not a very strong position. If the SCOTUS ruled in Texas's favor, saying yes, from now on states can sue each other because they disagree with how other states enforce their internal laws, then what is to stop other states from suing Texas in 2021, because they disagree with how Texas handles gun control laws? Or because they disagree with how Texas enforces abortion laws?
From the perspective of these justices who have spent their careers on "legal precedents" and are probably accustomed to ignoring the news media and outside pressure, their refusal to hear the Texas case might make a lot more sense than it initially did to me when I first heard about it yesterday, because I was coming at the issue from the perspective of ignoring legal precedents, and just wanting to stop the fraud as quickly as possible so we can give the maximum penalty possible under law to everyone who can be shown to have engaged in election fraud and election tampering...
But if I was a justice who took my job seriously, I would absolutely refuse to hear the Texas case... unless I am missing something.
No I am hoping that President Trump is still playing 4D chess somehow, even though I think this tweet of his is insane.
This tweet makes it sound like he is trying to convince all Americans to give up and lose hope in this election process and lose hope in the rule of law.
Whereas in fact, if I was a Supreme Court justice, I would dismiss this Texas case myself, because it's the weakest of all the election fraud cases they will be given. The Texas case is about Texas's right to interfere in how other states enforce their election laws. If the SCOTUS heard this case and ruled against Texas, that would be much worse than if they did not take the case.
If the SCOTUS heard this Texas case and ruled in Texas's favor, saying yes states can sue other states because they don't like how other states enforce their laws, then in 2021, there could be hundreds of lawsuits where states sue Texas because they disagree with how Texas enforces its gun control laws, and so on.
I can't think of any reason that it's a bad thing for the SCOTUS to reject the Texas case, so long as they hear one of the other election fraud cases, where there is far more evidence of wrongdoing, and far more "standing" involved, and more of a "damaged party".
That's why I do not understand this tweet from the President. It's like he's taking an emotionalistic reaction to the whole thing, rather than helping us focus on existing paths to victory... just my 2c...
In what way?
Personally I was "pinning all my hopes" on the Texas case, and I felt devastated by the dismissal today. But then when I realized that the SCOTUS routinely refuses to hear 99% of cases, I decided that I was reacting based on emotions rather than based on logic. The Texas case is the weakest of all the election cases, in terms of "damages" and in terms of "standing", I think.
We're all still dancing like puppets on strings based on the manipulations of the mainstream news media. They tell us it's all over and we buy it. They tell us the SCOTUS dismisses a single case, and that proves they will dismiss all election fraud cases.
What was Texas's standing?
As I understand it, their case was based on the idea that other states were not enforcing their election laws in a suitable manner.
I agree that those states are not enforcing their election laws. But for Texas to claim to have a say in the matter is not a very clear matter in my opinion.
Just remember, the SCOTUS routinely rejects 99% of the cases sent to them. They chose the most important cases, with the most clear evidence and standing. Or at least, it's my understand that that is what they should do, so perhaps that's what they are doing now???
Yeah hopefully it's 4d chess of some kind
It's not a strong case for Texas to claim to be able to control how other states choose their electors, or how they choose to enforce their laws.
What if other states sue Texas in the future, saying that Texas is too lenient on gun owners, and needs to enforce Texas laws differently?
It's a messy precedent.
Plus the Texas suit today was not even about election fraud, as the Texas AG himself stated! If I was a justice on the SCOTUS, I would refuse to hear the weaker cases, and I would only hear the strongest case about election fraud.
If the SCOTUS did hear the Texas case and then ruled against Texas, that would be much worse, maybe, than what happened today, which was a routine dismissal, which perhaps means nothing at all, despite what the "news" media might say.
But otherwise yes I feel utterly frustrated by how things have been going for the past few weeks...!
I completely disagree with Trump for once.
This is insane.
How can Texas have a say in how another state chooses its electors, or enforces its laws?
By criticizing the SCOTUS, Trump is doing the exact opposite of what he should be doing, which is praising the justices so they feel on the line for doing the right thing in the upcoming cases...
Am I wrong about this???
I hear what you're saying, and yes, many of the people on TV seem wicked to me as well. But I've also met very decent Americans hidden away here and there, and perhaps there are far more of such people than we realize, because the wackos on television are so visible and make so much noise.
It's like the fake polls and the fake election results--for all I know, all 50 states are actually red / conservative, and it's just the news media that has convinced us otherwise. After all, California had a Republican governor just a few years ago, and Giuliani was the Mayor of NYC not that long ago.
I dunno.
Maybe. But it's a much weaker standing than the other cases, with Trump as the plaintiff.
Just remember, the SCOTUS routinely rejects 99% of the cases they are sent, and if they are sent multiple cases that touch on a single issue, they tend to choose the case that is most clear-cut to listen to. That's how I would do it myself if I were a justice, and personally I want to see executions for election tampering, if possible....!!!
Actually, of the five cases being sent to them about election fraud, today's case was the one with the LEAST evidence and the WEAKEST standing.
Texas was claiming that they have a say in how other states determine their electors. That's hard to prove.
Texas was also saying they are not presenting evidence of fraud, only evidence that other states did not follow their own laws.
If I was a justice on the SCOTUS I would absolutely dismiss the Texas case today. That way I can focus on the real election fraud cases that are coming up.
If you look at it from the point of view of how the SCOTUS always operates, today's dismissal actually means nothing.
The shitty part was I listened to conservatives earlier today and yesterday who told me "This Texas case is the big one!" and all that crap. Which is a load of bull. I was told to pin all my hopes on this Texas case, but now I'm finding out this is totally unfounded.
Just my two cents, after mulling over this for a few hours.
Now that I've had time to reflect on it, I now feel that today's ruling was in some ways positive, and in other ways inconsequential.
There are already four other cases head to SCOTUS, based on actual evidence and actual damages.
The case today was based on relatively little evidence of election fraud, compared to the other cases, and was based on the claim that Texas has a say in how other states choose their electors.
The biggest problem with what happened today is that I watched a few minutes of Steven Crowder, and I bought into the idea that this Texas case is "the big one" which I should pin all my hopes on. Whereas, in reality, if I was a justice on the SCOTUS, and if I believe election fraud had taken place, I would absolutely dismiss today's case, so I can focus on one of the other election fraud cases.
Man... crazy times we live in, where we freak out over nothing. From a legal perspective, today's dismissal has absolutely nothing to do with SCOTUS being biased against listening to evidence of election fraud, I now believe...!
I hear what you're saying. That's exactly how I felt an hour ago.
But think about it... they have five cases about election fraud coming to them. Today's case was the not the strongest case, from the standpoint of Trump's team. So maybe it's 100% positive that they refused to hear today's case.
Remember, the Texas case they dismissed today was not about evidence of fraud, per se, it was about Texas claiming to have a say in how other states choose their electors.
The problem is that the conservative media, like Crowder's show this morning, SOLD us this Texas case as being "the big one" that we should pin all our hopes on, whereas from the perspective of trained attorneys, that might not be a healthy way to view this at all...
It might matter if these same judges prefer to hear a DIFFERENT election fraud case, when there are already four such cases in the pipeline.
Remember, we are not expecting a 9-0 ruling against Trump in the SCOTUS. In today's Texas case, all nine judges said they could not grant a remedy in this particular case, because Texas cannot complain about how other states choose their electors--that's presumably the logic here. So that's a clue that today's ruling might not be important... the important ruling will not be 9-0, most likely.
Okay, yes, thank you. I'm starting to believe that today's ruling was more about legal technicalities than about a blanket refusal of SCOTUS to hear cases regarding this election.
Thank you for pointing this out.
In reading the two paragraphs SCOTUS wrote about this case, the justices seemed to me to be WOEFULLY ignorant about what is going on in this country, and about how many people will read their words, thanks to modern interconnectedness, and will find their statements to be confusing.
Their statements give the impression that they are tucked away in ivory towers, rather than publishing a statement on their website for millions of people to read. It's kind of insane, the lack of context provided for these events...
Thanks for pointing this out.
P.S. What are the "final 4 SCOTUS cases"?
And where can I get accurate news about these things?
No, Alito and Thomas said they would grant no remedy to the plaintiffs, but they would hear the case as a mere formality because of "original jurisdiction" technicalities.
Edited to add: please check out the comments from an actual attorney about this case: https://thedonald.win/p/11R4JGEHkU/x/c/4DqddgkPMeN which I found very helpful. He says there are already four cases of election fraud headed to the SCOTUS to hear.
Also, I just heard somewhere that the SCOTUS routinely rejects 99% of the cases brought to them, I guess. And for Texas to claim to have a say in how another state chooses its electors, no matter how illegally, perhaps is not something they have standing to claim.
But if several states engage in criminal election activity, so as to outvote the electors from Texas, then yes, I do indeed believe that Texas citizens might be harmed by that.
To me it's not as clearcut as some people are making it sound.
Edited to add... okay after reading the comments from the attorney in another thread, I now believe today's ruling was inconsequential, and not negative at all, in any sense.
Even the dissenters explicitly said they would provide no remedy to this case, only hear it as a formality...! omg.
It's a real human being who is describing other human beings being crushed economically. Where's the joke? I don't understand your question.
Some people from Long Island have very thick accents. That's also where the President grew up.
This reminds me of the movie "Thirteen Days" where JFK's assistant was calling air force bases and speaking to pilots directly, asking them to go against orders from their higher ups, in order to save the world.