Posted on 12/12/2020 2:17:34 PM PST by rebuildus
Patrick Rooney, Founder of Old School™, answers the question of why we should have known SCOTUS would refuse to hear the Texas election case.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
Not everyone who voted for Trump is surprised.
A setback yes a total loss no. Thrown out on procedure not substance. Onward patriots when the reward is high so is the challenge.
Our lady of Guadalupe intercede for us before your son. Bring victory to us in our battle against injustice.
What the Supreme Court has done is tell ALL 74 MILLION Trump voters: We are here to protect the swamp from you, not you from the swamp. Sit down, shut up, and do what China, Big Tech, Big Media, Hollywood, and George Soros tell you to do and believe what they tell you to believe.’
It’s funny that the 3 Trump appointees sided with the dems on this thinking that they can curry favor with them. The joke is on them however. If the dems get control of the senate they will pack the court and impeach Barrett and maybe even Kavanaugh.
While I'm not happy with the outcome of this case, I'm not surprised about it. An "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution would weigh heavily against one state having the legal standing to challenge election procedures -- or any other legal matter -- in another state.
I suspect even Thomas and Alito knew this. They only wanted the USSC to accept the case, but neither one of them was willing to grant any of the immediate injunctions that Texas was requesting. That's a major indicator that they probably did NOT expect Texas to ultimately prevail in the case.
NWO capitals Washington, Davos and Beijing!
Not surprised.
Disappointed.
But not surprised.
The Supreme Court isn’t.
Just phonies like all the rest.
Is there any way to bring it back in on the notion that this widespread apparent fraud basically hurt every voter in Texas, not just the Trump voters, by minimizing the legal votes? That is, the voters would be the ones with the standing, not the state of Texas itself.
Such a move would also accommodate the roughly 30% of DEMOCRATS (in the U.S.) who apparently believe there was fraud in this election as well.
Wow! A blogger that new what SCOTUS was going to do! And tells us AFTER IT HAPPENED!
What I find interesting is all of the pundits who are so knowledgeable ‘after the fact’.
Free Republic is a great resource where hundreds of common people are scouring the internet to find news articles of interest.
What I have found lacking are commentaries written by conservative minded scholars before something happens. And maybe that is the problem. Those conservative scholars have been removed from academia.
I like Victor Davis Hanson as a conservative scholar. But, he can’t deeply analyze everything and then put it into words.
Who else do we have besides VDH as our go-to conservative scholar?
Is this another video of yourself?
the 3 Trump appointees sided with the dems on this thinking that they can curry favor with them.
Wonder if the 3 appointees were actually following the Constitution and the Law with their decision? That is what Trump wanted and many of us wanted them in the position they were appointed why would they all three go against the Constitution on their first case of intense public interest.
Who asked him?
Was he sitting around looking at porn and multitudes of folks
disturbed him with these pressing questions? Interrupted him
having himself a nice wank and now he's made a video of himself?
We are at a point in America where threats of violence of including death to people and or their families are effective all the way the supremes. There is no rule of law any more.
Good question!
The Supreme Court is constitutionally chartered with original jurisdiction (disputes between states) and appellate jurisdiction for almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. The court declined to hear the Texas case because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”
IANAL but the lay translation is they dodged the issue. Why would they do this?
Because, as has been made clear in previous decisions, the court delineates between political issues and legal ones. They view the election fraud as a political problem that should be dealt with through the political process. So they used a procedural argument (lack of standing).
Their reasoning is something like this: Say I own a Corvette and drive responsibly but other Corvette owners do not and as a result my insurance premiums go sky high. Even though I have been damaged financially by their actions, I don’t have standing to sue the other drivers. Nor can I sue the insurance company because that is a voluntary contract and my option is to go elsewhere.
It would be interesting to hear from an attorney about the “chilling effects” doctrine as basis for finding standing in cases where direct harm is not proven but there is a connection. It does seem to be a much more tenuous legal argument however.
Yeah I am not willing to sell them all short just yet.
Chief Justice Roberts though 🙄
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Professor of Law, said there wasn’t any reason to deny standing other than the Court didn’t want to hear it.
The Constitution clearly states on matters of original jurisdiction ‘SHALL’ grant standing. There is no ‘discretion’. Only in matters of lower court appeals does SCOTUS have discretion.
Both Thomas and Alito called this out in a recent past case between states.
But over time, the Court has slipped ‘discretion’ into matters of original jurisdiction.
To the layman, the Court wimped out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.