[KevinB]

Aren’t they only considering whether to hear them at this point?

[joshua c]

That is my understanding. It is just a conference. They havent agreed to hear anything.

[NautiNurse]

Aren’t they only considering whether to hear them at this point?

This is my understanding. SCOTUS will discuss in conference Feb. 19.

[Cboldt]

-- Aren't they only considering whether to hear them at this point? --

Depends on what you mean by "hearing" the case.

The process of dealing with a case has two clear places that in casual vernacular are called "refused to hear" or "refused to decide."

The first, in time, is when a party files a petition or a claim before SCOTUS. These petitions are long, detailed petitions that explain why SCOTUS should take the case. 99% of the time SCOTUS reads these, then says "we will hear no more." Petition denied, "cert denied" in the vernacular.

The second is after the court agrees to hear more. There are more filings, often but not always some oral argument. That's where these cases are, procedurally. Cert was granted.

But even after hearing the case, SCOTUS may declare that it lacks jurisdiction. That's what it did in Marbury v. Madison. Did it hear the case? Did it decide the case? Those are rhetorical questions. People will argue the Q&A, rhetorically, but it doesn't matter. Marbury didn't get the relief he wanted.

[falcon99]

Yes, you are right. Nothing in the media is accurate anymore — whether on the left or right

[Dr. Franklin]

Aren't they only considering whether to hear them at this point?

Technically, yes. However, before the election four justices voted to expedite the PA case. That vote as tied at 4-4. Assuming that no votes are lost due to "mootness", (which shouldn't apply both because Trump or another affected person can still bring a quo warranto action, and because the matter is capable of occurring again and escaping judicial review. The bigger issue is whether or not there is a fifth vote for granting meaningful judicial relief after the Congress certified Biden as president.

The quest for the fifth vote at SCOTUS is all about Amy. Either Justice Barrett decides that saving the Republic is more important than people liking her, or calling her bad names, or the Republic has been lost. I suspect that CJ Roberts has been pressuring her to recuse herself, although I can see no requirement for that. Roberts may also have been joining her opinions on religious freedom cases as a way of manipulating her. He is a real POS, and involved in obstructing judicial review of the illegalities and fraud in the election