SCOTUS Fri Morning Update

Freerepublic | 12/11/2020 | tarpit

[Dr. Franklin]

It would seem a ruling on TEXAS should come today.

SCOTUS could order oral argument over the weekend. The problem if the matter isn't resolved before Monday is there could be problems with peaceful protests when the Electoral College meets then.

[HamiltonJay]

I admit I am no lawyer, but I don’t understand how the “lack of standing” that they claim “experts” believe will be declared can be declared.

Given that the argument is that these states behaviors violate the equal protection clause, and the outcome (who the executive of the US federal government will be) affects TX as well as all states, I don’t see how this could be dismissed for lack of standing...

Clearly the State or TX has a vested interest and is affected by who the Federal Executive (President) will be.

Can some lawyer here explain how the “experts” think lack of standing will be declare here.

[redgolum]

So your legal answer is that SCOTUS won’t follow the law

Simply put, yes. Perhaps you been asleep for a while, but "law" doesn't mean much in 2020. The SCOTUS is not a computer. It is a group of individuals with their own egos, biases, emotions, and wants.

[redgolum]

You are correct.

But it preserves the perception that it was “out of their hands”, which is the main goal right now.

No judge wants to be the one who overturns a election, even with all the fraud. Much easier to just pretend that “Well, we can’t hear the case because you are not really injured and therefore have no standing”.

It is, as you say, a semantic difference but one often used. Perception is reality.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Thanks tarpit.

I just read the Texas reply to the four states. In relatively few words Texas has rebutted the arguments made by GA, MI, PA, WI in their responses to the lawsuit.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163492/20201211095715842_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf

Having read the Texas complaint, the 18 State amici brief, the PA Response, the GA Response, and now this Texas rebuttal, I am more confident than ever SCOTUS will take the case and Texas wins.

[tarpit]

If they punt it will be for lack of standing. Also, they could still grant the motion to file, and then deny hearing the case.

[dangus]

I don’t know if this is from you, or in the original, but Bullock is the governor of Montanta (”MT”), not Missouri (”MO”).

[Dr. Franklin]

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.

Your understanding is not correct. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over certain matters according to Article III. It doesn't need to accept all of its original jurisdiction. Thus, it can exercise discretion over how much of its original jurisdiction it exercises. It prefers not to hear many cases it could hear originally. It's Article III original jurisdiction does include any case in which a state shall be party. However, with state v. state cases SCOTUS by tradition does not defer jurisdiction to another court. In those cases, other non-state litigants, such as POTUS, may be granted leave to inteverne at SCOTUS.

Furthermore, there are legal arguments that can be made that SCOTUS could hear the case as original jurisdiction even if Texas is determined to lack standing. That gets into the technical relationship between the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Elveenth and Fourteenth Amendments. It is unprecedented, but possible. This case is about the legitimacy of presidential electors. POTUS and VPOTUS are not ordinary citizens with regard to their legal relationship with the several states. Something execptional is possible from SCOTUS.

[redgolum]

They have till Monday.

It is now mid day on Friday....

[DFG]

bookmark

[tarpit]

Yes, my bad. I corrected it in my doc. Thank you.

[tarpit]

Thank you for the clarification. Based on source I was under the impression that if the case is not an original jurisdiction case, then SCOTUS may punt it as it could be heard in a different venue.

[DesertRhino]

They aren’t stupid. 17 states have joined them now. They know that a giant majority of the American people know the election was stolen. If the supreme legitimize this, they will kick off the Civil War.

[redgolum]

Who is doing violence, seizing parts of cities, and being protected by the police?

Who are talking about rules, laws, and rights but doing anything?

And most importantly, where do the justices live, socialize, and move around?

The personal threat is from team blue, the theoretical threat is from team red.

[Dr. Franklin]

Article III, Section 2:

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.

FYI "consul" in ancient Rome was one of two elected chief magistrates in the Republic. POTUS could easily be considered a consul such that a question over presidential electors is in SCOTUS's original jurisdiction. Again, unprecedented but possible.

[RummyChick]

It’s possible that at least Alito and Thomas would vote in favor of hearing the case.

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/12/11/two-supreme-court-justices-are-of-the-view-the-court-must-hear-cases-involving-disputes-between-states-are-there-five-n292833

[Presbyterian Reporter]

“””In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls”””

---

Does this clause refer to Foreign Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls?

Or does the clause refer to United States citizens who are Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls?

[tarpit]

Apparently a New California and New Nevada both filed in support. Yes, it is on the docket. It's Friday.

[tarpit]

Apparently a New California and New Nevada both filed in support. Yes, it is on the docket. It's Friday.

[Dr. Franklin]

Thank you for the link. It is a good read and very informative. The fact is, much of what SCOTUS does is based on setting policy. In this case I believe they have a clear duty to act. I just saw an interview with Texas AG Paxton on Newmax. He noted that the reason for SCOTUS having original jurisdiction over disputes between states is that it was designed that way by the framers to avoid wars between the states. Recently, a Texas state legislator has filed a declaration of secession, and Rush is contemplating if the Blue and Red states are capable of remaining in one Union.

There are severe consequences if SCOTUS doesn't giver this a fair hearing. Even the liberal justices on the left may recognize the seriousness of election fraud and the effects of a stolen election. I am expecting oral arguments over the weekend.