Isn't that negated by Trump, the aggrieved party, attaching to Texas?
bookmark
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
“ 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.
I thought Missouri was supporting the plaintiff/s??
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.
Scotusblog.org:
“In their final conference of 2020, the justices will meet privately on Friday to discuss pending petitions seeking the court’s review.”
It would seem a ruling on TEXAS should come today.
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.
I don’t know if this is from you, or in the original, but Bullock is the governor of Montanta (”MT”), not Missouri (”MO”).
bookmark
Correction. MORE have not filed in support of defendants.