You make excellent points, JoeA.
But I still think it would have been a very dangerous precedent, and that SCOTUS (hopefully) can pick from one or more of the other election cases headed their way.
The Texas case, by drawing the support that it did from other states, SUCCEEDED in proving the point that there is a huge portion of the country who feel the Constitution has been violated.
I would also add that General Flynn is pointing at foreign interference as the key national security issue, rather than whether States followed their own laws correctly (as was the primary focus of the Texas case).
“I would also add that General Flynn is pointing at foreign interference as the key national security issue, rather than whether States followed their own laws correctly (as was the primary focus of the Texas case).”
I’m going to play contrarian here with General Flynn. Foreign interference in our elections is A national security issue. But, we can fix at least part of that by not using foreign owned-operated voting systems.
The Real national security issue, is when we WON’t enforce our own Constitutional rules and laws and there are NEVER any consequences for not following any of them. Foreign money? We have rules on the books to cure that - but we never do.
The problem isn’t those “out there”, the problem is “in here.”
I have to agree with JoeA. The Supreme Court had an obligation to take the Texas case - then they could have found against them - wrongly, in my opinion, but I’m not a constitutional lawyer. But the sole court of original jurisdiction for State v. State is the SC. If they won’t even take the case to look at, where is a state to go - except out on their own?
the states breaking their own laws SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH!