Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: tarpit

“ 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.


10 posted on 12/11/2020 6:21:00 AM PST by jdsteel (Americans are Dreamers too!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jdsteel

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.


17 posted on 12/11/2020 6:26:58 AM PST by redgolum (If this culture today is civilization, I will be the barbarian )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: jdsteel
“ 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.


Considering that the president's lawyer at SCOTUS is a law professor and former law school dean, the report is rather overstated:
Dean John C. Eastman
38 posted on 12/11/2020 7:10:55 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson