Posted on 12/11/2020 12:38:28 PM PST by StAnDeliver
"...It is perfectly ordinary and appropriate for the justices to write an opinion explaining the various reasons why they are rejecting Texas’ request. Indeed, the minority of justices who think that the court is required to accept original actions like Texas’ may well write short opinions of their own or note that they think the case was properly filed. So there is nothing overreaching if a majority of the court explains why the case is meritless."
"The justices’ decision whether to do that needs to account for this extraordinary, dangerous moment for our democracy. President Donald Trump, other supportive Republicans, and aligned commentators have firmly convinced many tens of millions of people that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. If that view continues to take hold, it threatens not only our national politics for the next four years but the public’s basic faith in elections of all types that are the foundations of our society."
"In a time that is so very deeply polarized, I cannot think of a person, group or institution other than the Supreme Court that could do better for the country right now. Supporters of the president who have been gaslighted into believing that there has been a multi-state conspiracy to steal the election recognize that the court is not a liberal institution. If the court will tell the truth, the country will listen."
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Goldstein graduated from AmU (ugh) in '95 and then joined BoiesSchiller, leaving just barely before David Boies lost Bush v Gore. Otherwise as an associate, Goldstein surely would have had a hand in Boies petitioning SCOTUS for (ahem) an identical remedy in Bush v Gore on the identical grounds of Texas v Pa.
Unironically, Goldstein would briefly move on to JonesDay, which now represents Republican Party PA in their SCOTUS suit against Boockvar, petitioning SCOTUS for -- you guessed it -- an identical remedy for Texas v Pa on the identical grounds of Bush v Gore.
Perhaps this is why Goldstein moved on, to blogging at SCROTUSblog. Certainly easier to quietly punch down on former (or current) comrades, than to actually contribute to the practice of law, or buffer the right of law firms to represent clients you disagree with, as we will soon see...
Notice a theme emerging here. We could call it The Hypocratic Oath.
"If someone wishes for good health, one must first ask oneself if he is ready to do away with the reasons for his illness. Only then is it possible to help him." —Hippocrates (with a ripe assessment of those unfortunates suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome)
Now all the way down the Hypocratic Oath knuckerhole, note that Goldstein's previous entry at SCOTUSBlog was a direct warning against libeling attorneys for the views of their clients.
"Because these sorts of attacks on lawyers in the Supreme Court have become more and more common, I thought it would be worth taking a moment to explain why I think they are so misguided...This phenomenon of attacking lawyers personally for the positions of their clients threatens to be totally counterproductive."
Literally just 9 days later, Goldstein tries to mine a vein of mistrust and -- quelle surprise -- "attack lawyers personally for the positions of their clients", in this case, Texas v Pa, the President of the United States.
"That is particularly appropriate when, as here, the court finds itself being used as a tool to actively undermine faith in our democratic institutions — including by the members of the court’s bar on whom the justices depend to act much more responsibly."
Hippocrates gets the last word:
"One must first ask oneself if he is ready to do away with the reasons for his illness. Only then is it possible to help him."
It’s too late for the USSC to be taken seriesly.
Traitor Roberts took care of that just before the election.
“The distinction pressed by the chief justice was this: Federal courts should not change voting procedures enacted by state legislatures, and they also should not step in when state courts or agencies change those procedures.”
Idiot..................
Too late, nothing that the Left of the Establishment can say will ever convince me that the election was not stolen. And BTW, I did not come to this opinion because the President Trump or other conservatives fooled me; it is obvious from the known facts. I can think for myself.
*snif snif*
Smell that?
Smells like panic.
At least the writer was honest and posted a link to a case that held that SCOTUS does NOT have to take a case. Thomas and Alito filed a dissenting opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf
So we have two votes anyway.
Except that the SCOTUS not only accepted the case, they gave the four outlaw states till yesterday to answer the charges. The SCOTUS wouldn't accept the case if the majority of them thought the SCOTUS was not required to accept it.
Who writes garbage anyways?
“Don’t just deny Texas’ original action. Decimate it.”
He will not cope with Trump's SECOND TERM.
Reduce it by 10%?
“The distinction pressed by the chief justice was this: Federal courts should not change voting procedures enacted by state legislatures, and they also should not step in when state courts or agencies change those procedures.”
Lampposts.
The NFL is a 32 team league. All teams follow the same set of rules.
Then under the cover of COVID, 4 rouge teams decide they get 5 downs not 4, can hold anytime they want, and their personal fouls are only a 5 yard penalty not 15.
The other 28 teams cry foul. What does the NFL commissioner do?
Yeah, because even those of us who support him (about 75,000,000 give or take a couple dozen), have been hard-pressed to find any SERIOUS coverage of this issue on any of the MSM. So it would be a real stretch to think we have been gas-lighted into believing pretty much anything, IMHO.
Goldstein is trying to influence the Court because he knows that’s some of the justices’ clerks read SCOTUSblog. He’s done this before, but never so blatantly.
If the Court decides not to get involved, it should do so the same way it usually does. Going out of its way to “decimate” anything would do far more damage to the Court’s reputation with average Americans than a simple line or two on an order list ever would. The only ones who would feel good about such an action are Democrats and those in the legal community who have imagined themselves as heroes for the “resistance”.
They may be very hard to find, but I think there are polls showing that even 40-50% of the Democrats believe the election was stolen.
Liberals
I continue to see supposedly learned people misuse the word “decimate” when they clearly intend to say “annihilate.” Words are hard, I guess.
Factors in determining original jurisdiction. From defendant California’s brief in Arizona v. California (2020) in which the Court refused to hear the case:
“The Court looks to two factors in determining
whether an original suit is appropriate for its resolution. First, the Court examines “the nature of the interest of the complaining State, focusing on the
‘seriousness and dignity of the claim.’” Mississippi,
506 U.S. at 77 (citation omitted). Second, the Court
considers “the availability of an alternative forum in
which the issue tendered can be resolved.” Id. In applying these factors, the Court has “‘substantial discretion to make case-by-case judgments’” about the
“‘practical necessity’” of its review. Id. at 76 (quoting
Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 570 (1983)).
If this standard is correct, the COurt should take the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.