Posted on 12/15/2020 7:03:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Exactly...
A specific article and section in the US Constitution, named parties mutually agreed to be bound by the article and section. Some named parties decide to not follow the binding agreement. The others object...
SCOTUS says, ‘We don’t have original jurisdiction’...
Right... Gotcha...
Something else is going on here.
If that's the case, then the Federal law is blatantly unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures to determine the manner of selecting their electors in a presidential election. The only requirement it has in terms of the timing is that the electors must convene for the Electoral College vote on the same day.
This is why there are so many variations among the states in how their elections are conducted. Some allow mail-in ballots. Some REQUIRE mail-in ballots. Some start counting ballots on Election Day. Some start counting weeks ahead of time. Etc., etc.
I see the point you make.
But I still have a hard time with SCOTUS. It seems to me that TX is making the claim that one (or more) states cheated in the election, and because of this cheating (in PA, MI, wherever), the residents of TX (and 49 other states) are going to be stuck with Joe Biden as president. Texas says it is being harmed by the fraudulent actions that were allowed to take place in another state. To me, this seems like a legitimate claim of one state against another.
It’s judicial overreach when it goes against Democrats....
What the Supreme Court DID say is: "We have original jurisdiction but this plaintiff has no standing to file this lawsuit in the first place."
It's exactly the same response the Supreme Court would have made if Pennsylvania sued Texas over the way TX funds its school districts.
Cowardice is the word. Bush was intimated by the left and didn’t fight back and so is Roberts with threats of violence and riots.
Despite their cowardly behavior they may have still ruled against Texas and that would have been an arrow in Joe’s quiver.
YES!
But did the “REQUIRE” come from the state legislature via laws passed in the state OR did some other state authority “REQUIRE” a “variation” not enacted into law by the state legislature?
The US Constitution is officially optional.
Surprised this came from Hillsdale. Of course Texas had standing. Nearly 2/3 of Texas’s electoral votes were neutralized by the illegal votes in Pennsylvania. Since this was a state vs state suit, the proper venue was the Supreme Court, per the US Constitution. Since part of the illegal activity involved violating the US Constitution the proper venue was the Supreme Court. There can be no argument that any other court had jurisdiction.
They didn’t even bother hearing the case these judges are now evolved I highly expect every big decision to go against conservatives like it always does
Why blame it on Roberts? He had exactly one vote, the same as the other justices.
Thanks for the reply...
OK then if you and I mutually agree to be bound to an agreement under a specific process and I decide to follow an arbitrary process is not the “mutual” part of the agreement violated?
All I know is that this court, if it isnt packed in 2021, owes us a few
The author is wrong to assess it its judicial activism and his main argument is that we have never had judicial intervention of this kind before. SO? Why is it that because its never been done at this level or to this degree that it is wrong? How is this a legitimate argument?
Judicial activism is the action of a court to act against the will of the people so it is a good thing that any court would be pensive about doing that. Here, however, we are talking about the SCOTUS acting on irregularities, failure to obey state constitutions (PA) and failure to follow rules (GA) and more. This affected the outcome of their states which altered what would have been the will of Texas so yes, in my opinion, Texas had standing as did the 17 other states.
Were it just barely enough people in Texas to send this to the court is one thing, but when 17 other states AG’s, Governors, their administrations, and the 126 Members of the House join in you have to be kidding me that the SCOTUS does not see this as important enough to consider. It screams cowardice. It screams that Chief Justice Roberts is a rat.
The states, rightly, have very limited grounds on which to sue each other.
Imagine if CA could sue TX because Texas' voter ID laws were too strict.
Or because their gun purchase laws were too lax and some guns bought in Texas were used in a crime in CA.
SCOTUS wouldn't have time for anything other than interstate lawsuits and it would destroy the entire basis of federalism.
I think a lot of people thought that. IIRC, Thomas and Alito thought it would not have been eligible for relief, but that the plaintiffs should have had the opportunity to air their claim. That would have been fine, but just rejecting it out of the box was not.
“Hyper activism” is essential when the nation is faced with hyper criminality!
[shrug] I won’t do a whole lot of back and forth because I’m not an expert, and my opinions don’t really matter. So I won’t push it.
But it does seem to me that stealing a national election and installing a fraudulent president has a more direct impact on the other states than would local statutes on gun control or voter ID.
But, clearly, SCOTUS thinks I’m wrong.
Speaking for myself, I find the notion of a court “owing” anyone anything rather disturbing, regardless of to whom it is owed.
.........so, this professor is digging in the kitchen drawer for batteries to put in his smoke detector while the rest of his house is engulfed in flames and the firetrucks, sirens blaring, are pulling up out in the street........
........a classroom discussion of “standing” is nice when you have a country to discuss it in...........
Thank you...
I’m not a lawyer but I am a Political Science grad. 40 years ago we game played the idea of “enemies, foreign and domestic” vs the US Constitution and we came to exactly this conclusion.
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.