The Supreme Court Was Right: Texas Didn’t Have Standing

The Federalist ^ | December 15, 2020 | Thomas Perry

[KierkegaardMAN]

“...should not lose sight of the structural constitutional values that will last far beyond any one lawsuit and any one election.” Mental and moral midget trying to talk about future elections when this is in essence the last election.

[SecondAmendment]

Baloney of course Texas had standing. Two and two is and always will be four ...

[rdcbn1]

The Texas case was the wrong case for the SCOTUS to accept as a basis to overturn the election.

That was the whole problem with accepting the Texas law suit - the law was on the side of President Trump but it was a horrible reason to overturn a Presidential election because it would have been perceived as overturning the election based on a chicken s**t technicality

[Dr. Sivana]

So, if a state doesn’t have standing against another state when that state violates the Constitution in such a way as to seriously undermine the political process of the several states, who the heck DOES have standing?!

So, if Florida takes too much water from a shared waterway with Georgia, Georgia has standing to sue Florida, but if Michigan takes to many votes from a shared election with Texas, no standing?!

[windsorknot]

The Supreme Court apologists are having a field day.

[Dr. Sivana]

horrible reason to overturn a Presidential election

This is NOT "overturning an election", it is trying to come up with a correct Constitutional result when a bunch of dirty deep staters pee and defecate in the voters' swimming pool.

[DoughtyOne]

Defending the indefensible.

Illegal votes in one state, disenfranchises the legal votes
not only in that state, but in the other 49 states to boot.

In the case of what is going on right now, it reversed the
natural outcome of the election.

Other states whose votes were legal, were disenfranchised by
the illegal votes.

The people who voted for Trump, were cheated. Their votes
meant nothing.

The SCOTUS is fill of Obama on this one.

[Seruzawa]

Here come the scribblers again.

[MortMan]

Article III of the Constitution limits the “judicial Power” to only “Cases” and “Controversies.” Very early in the nation’s history, the Supreme Court affirmed that the original understanding of these terms was limited to disputes between parties, not disputes about the law.

However, there has never, to my knowledge, been a dispute between parties (TX and several other states) that was a question of whether the law as applied (as opposed to as written) that occurred in the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.

Yes, the remedy sought was unique. However, the facts of the question itself are unique and bordering the explored universe of jurisprudence. The fraud was so blatant and pervasive in the disputed states that the harm was both concrete and judiciable, IMHO.

[sasquatch]

So much for We the People.

[EinNYC]

Rush just brought out a very good point. He said that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case because they wanted Trump out of office. It’s easy to take legalese, which is confusing to laymen at the best of times, and make up some muckety-muck that sounds good as a reason not to hear the case.

[pepsi_junkie]

Lots of niceties about precedent, prior cases, hypothetical harm. yadda yadda yadda. SCOTUS is a court that legislated that the commerce clause gave the government the power to regulate everything in the universe. They never feel their hands are tied. If they wanted to review it, they would have. They didn't and the rest is justification after the fact.

The fact remains that several states violated their own laws AND the constitution. Nowhere does this sage analysis address that as a concern or consideration. However if states can do that and other states have no standing to object then the court is telling states their only options is accept subservient status, retaliate in some way, or walk away. No good choices left.

[Kickass Conservative]

It wouldn’t “overturn” an Election, it would validate the Legal Votes and invalidate the Illegal Votes in the Election.

[proust]

“Those disappointed in the outcome of this election and of the Texas suit should not lose sight of the constitutional values that will last far beyond any one lawsuit and any one election.”

The election was stolen, GA will be stolen and Biden will pack SCOTUS, but at least I still have my constitution!

[zeestephen]

Re: "constitutional values that will last far beyond any one lawsuit"

Get real.

They will last until Biden-Harris appoint two Judges.

After that, the Constitution will mean nothing.

[AndyJackson]

Utter 'effin baloney from start to finish. The Constitution is a compact between the states [Article VII of the Constitution].

Every state is harmed when another state violates federal election to/and commit[s] fraud.

[Alberta's Child]

I've been saying for days that the REAL litigants should have been the state legislatures themselves.

That's probably what Texas wanted to accomplish anyway. The only reason NOT to include Nevada among the named defendants was that Nevada has a Democratic legislature, unlike the other four states named in the lawsuit.

[Bellagio]

Good grief! Not this nonsense again...

I don’t even want to go into how poorly reasoned and now heavily inclined Thomas Perry’s opinion piece is.

It’s just another subjective opinion... and off the mark.

his ramblings are mute to me.

[stanne]

The people vote for the president. We know Trump won.

Everyone knows Trump won. The Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, the media- from tucker to Laura Ingraham to Rachel maddow- Hillary, Obama, Biden, the Georgia maniacal klowns, Bill Barr, the CIA, the FBI and the CCP.

People can talk and write and deliberate all they want, but the people of this country are the ones in charge. So the people I just listed who either work for us or who do not have any business in this decision had better either figure out how to help otmr get out of our way.