SCOTUS did the same side-step on the fake pro forma sessions that effectively gut POTUS recess appointment power. SCOTUS just says "they are in session if the say they are, even if they are not." Not in their purview, portfolio.
I'm not of a mind that this is a healthy or correct view in either case, just pointing out that there are sufficient points on both sides of any issue, that any court can take any outcome it wants to.
Thanks for reply.
Based on conflicts between original colonies, the delegates to the Constitution Convention gave conflicted states unrestricted access to the Supremes as a last resort to try to resolve conflicts that could lead to war between the states.
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
So by refusing to consider Texas’s evidence of alleged electoral vote manipulation in another state, the misguided Roberts Court has arguably helped to increase tension between conflicted states imo, as opposed to trying to help calm down the states to promote domestic tranquility insured in the Preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [emphasis added], provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."