Posted on 12/11/2020 5:54:44 AM PST by tarpit
Isn't that negated by Trump, the aggrieved party, attaching to Texas?
bookmark
Trump was not a party to the original complaint. In part, I believe it would not have been state v state if he was a party. He, like other states that have filed to intervene, has to wait for SCOTUS to decide if the case will be heard or denied. If accepted, then the courts decide who gets to intervene.
The way I understand it is the court will first need to determine if this is indeed a state v state matter, and if there are no other possible venues in which it can be heard. If there are other venues, the exclusive original jurisdiction would not apply, and the case would be denied.
So there was an expectation the court would take up fraud and voting machines instead ? Was there at least an effort by states and legislatures to handle these procedural issues before the election, or at least immediately following ? All rather confusing at the moment.
Bookmark
This is surely one of the most significant cases ever brought to the USSC. It goes to the core of our constitutional republic.
These four states through the executive and judicial branches have put their hand on the scale of free and fair elections that will impact the entire country.
If the USSC lets this stand, the republic could be at risk.
‘If there are other venues, the exclusive original jurisdiction would not apply, and the case would be denied.’
your understanding is absoutely correct; and, looking at this through the lens of reality, not likely that SCOTUS is going to delay the electors voting on Monday...
Incorrect. The Republic will be no more.
“ Many legal professors (including one from Texas) and other legal pundits believe this case will be denied a hearing, possibly as early as this morning, primarily for lack of standing.”
I find that statement nonsensical.
States have had lawsuits against other States in the past, and this one cites examples. The only venue that can adjudicate a lawsuit between States is SCOTUS.
That seems cut and dried. The only way SCOTUS could refuse to hear a State v State suit is if they think it isn’t important enough to be heard. Once again, in this case, that would be nonsense.
OK, legal beagles, tell me how that’s wrong.
if this is denied or ignored,
the consequence is that SCOTUS will have micturated
again on its ONLY purpose;
and will deserve to be shuttered and salted
with a sign warnings of China, Malta and MI-6, inside-below.
SCOTUS has exclusive original jurisdiction for state v state complaints. This means that the plaintiff *has* to bring it to SCOTUS because there is no possible alternative venue. So... if they do not agree that this is indeed a state v state complaint, and that there is no other possible venue, then they may accept it. Otherwise, it will get punted to a lower court to deal with it. This does not mean they think it is bogus, just that they are not the right venue.
I thought Missouri was supporting the plaintiff/s??
Again though, it means nothing about the merits. It simply would mean Texas filed the case with the wrong court. We shall see.
If this case is judged to not have standing, I don’t know what would.
How could a so called Constitutionalist even think that?
“ the idea of one state telling another how to run their election (especially through use of the courts) is offensive not to mention hypocritical.”
Hypothetical: If your state’s votes count as much as mine, and your state cheats then you’re damn right my state will have something to say about it. It amounts to your state cheating my state. Your voters disenfranchising mine. I love your state, and occasionally visit, but you won’t cheat me.
OK.
Let me put this plainly.
The SCOTUS will not be the start of massive social unrest. THEY LIVE IN GROUND ZERO.
So while you can argue the law, the reality is what it is.
People are by in large, corrupt and cowardly. In this post Christian landscape we need to realize that “law”, “duty”, and “rights” are words that have no meaning. “Ego”, “desire” and “force” still do.
The justices are not computers, they are living breathing individuals who are looking at a loaded gun pointed right at them. The easiest way out is to move aside of the gun, and deny standing. A path that is the legal equivalent of just laying back and thinking of England, but will by them time in their personal sphere.
Never mind what it does to the country.
That is why I believe, and many lawyers I have talked with, the Texas suit was nothing but theater. SCOTUS was never going to take it.
‘These four states through the executive and judicial branches have put their hand on the scale of free and fair elections that will impact the entire country.’
to name just one other state (there are many more) that changed procedures to account for covid was North Carolina, who extended the counting period for mail in votes to Nov 12, whee previously it was capped on election day itself; how come Paxton didn’t include NC in the suit...?
Their motion requesting to intervene has (I think) 5 states listed. This motion is a request to sCOTUS that if they agree to hear the case, then please add Missouri as a party to the complaint (on the Plaintiff side)
‘SCOTUS was never going to take it.’
true enough; but, theater or not, it did provide for some fun commentary for a few days...
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.