In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
US Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2
There is case history on the subject of SCOTUS jurisdiction, including the famous Marbury v. Madison.
Marbury is cited for the proposition that SCOTUS says what the law is. But what does that mean? I view the case as one of conflict of authorities. If a law conflicts with the constitution, which should control, the law? or the constitution? The law at question in Marbury was a SCOTUS jurisdiction law. Plaintiff brought case originally to SCOTUS, the ruling was that the case is not one for which SCOTUS has constitutional "original jurisdiction." SCOTUS couldn't take the case on original jurisdiction just because Congress passed a law to that effect, not amending the constitution.
Back to the post ... it is common for SCOTUS to punt to Congress. They do so with all the "not a qualified POTUS" cases, like against Obama, Cruz. On those, SCOTUS has used basically "not ripe until electoral college ballots are in Congress," and hinting maybe the issue (the meaning of natural born citizen) is for Congress to decide first - and maybe never for SCOTUS to decide. Giving Congress superiority over the constitution flies in the face of Marbury, but we are talking a Court here. Not consistent is the motto.
I haven't given thought to whether any particular case is suitable for SCOTUS original jurisdiction, but my gut says "no." Making jurisdiction a deciding issue instead of a routine threshold issue (follow one of the usual paths, and SCOTUS jurisdiction has to be right, but isn't an issue) would be unwise.
There is an aspect to case progression that provides more than one path to SCOTUS. Plaintiff Trump campaign can sue in state courts or federal courts. My recollection in Bush v. Gore is that suits were filed in both. The famous cases ran through Florida state courts, to the Florida Supreme Court, and appealed to SCOTUS. But there were cases originally filed in federal courts.
Read the beginning of the Trump Lawsuit against the PA election official in her official capacity.
This is designed to be a 9-0 Supreme Court slam dunk.
Thank you both very much for these analyses.
I am tryihg to understand (not exactly seeing it) how the FAKE VOTES for ChinaBiden and other RATs are going to be removed in a recount.
If POTUS wins in the PA case, then presumably the late-arriving ballots could be removed from the count. But is that enough to return PA to anything resembling an honest vote count?
What about the many instances when states violated their own laws by excluding Republican observers?
Who’s got the authority and/or ability to track back and repair the computer-generated fraud?
What about the envelope steaming operations?
Finally, are we talking one-by-one counting, checking addresses, signatures etc.?
Not trying to lay all these questions on y’all ... just looking for additional insights as to how this might go, and what options may be available to the Trump team and SCOTUS (which I am assuming would be inclined to act favorably if given the proper questions of law).