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

The Federalist ^ | December 15, 2020 | Thomas Perry

[bigbob]

Always fascinating to see the number of constitutional legal scholars on FR!

[elpadre]

Maybe the Texas filing and SCUTUS denial was all part of the overall plan. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/donald-trumps-stealthy-road-victory-172235

[Steve_Seattle]

" . . . generally the more potential plaintiffs a theory would create, the less plausible it is that the harm is particularized."

This is what my father used to call "gobbledygook." Aren't class-action lawsuits in direct contradiction to this so-called axiom? Aren't many environmental regulations passed on the assumption of widespread harm occurring in their absence? Don't laws against murder have a potential class of plaintiffs equal to the entire populace?

[GOPJ]

You Don’t Want This Precedent, Trust Me

Well, trust me Thomas Perry - YOU don't want the results of 60 million Americans knowing democrats have been stealing elections since Chicago's South Side (white 'elites' and the 'black community) joined to steal the election for Kennedy.

[crz]

That law suit would NOT have overturned any election.

It would have forced the state of PA, to explain how they could make laws, and enforce them, outside their legislature in elections and not effect all the other states.

You need to read the 14th amendment.

Because of their (scotus) cowardice, we no longer have a constitution and therefore states need not abide by it.

[Widget Jr]

I’m not a lawyer and not good at reading legalese. Did Texas argue that these states did not follow their own laws, which with the mass of evidence shows the elections in their states were rigged and disenfranchised Texas voters, or did they go for more nuanced points of law?

[pollywog]

So if the SCOTUS wants TRUMP OUT .... they want US OUT ALSO!!!

[Starboard]

We are in charge.

************

Of what exactly? The people who control DC, control our elections, and weaponize our agencies are in charge. They have all the power and the resources; all we have is a mistaken belief in the sanctity and value of our votes.

Have you ever read anything about Rome? Just curious because the parallels are uncanny.

[Alberta's Child]

Interestingly, "the people" were never really in charge in early America. The founders of this country went to great lengths to MINIMIZE democratic votes for public office holders at the Federal level.

One good example of this was the selection of U.S. Senators by means OTHER THAN voting by the citizenry (most of them were appointed by the state legislatures).

Another example that doesn't get much attention is that in the early years of this country fewer than half the states even had a "popular vote" to select the electors for President of the United States. Again -- in most states, the electors were appointed by the state legislature.

[Steve_Seattle]

So the USSC has the authority to regulate the content of speech at high school graduation ceremonies, but not to address potential fraud and illegalities in a presidential election?

[Starboard]

when done by conservatives, the courts will be quick to jump in and rule in favour of liberals

*****************

Precisely right. The Courts are pro liberal — always.

[Steve_Seattle]

I love that cartoon you posted. Sums it up pretty well.

[jospehm20]

Roberts is a no nads type of guy.

[rdcbn1]

The facts of the election dispute could not be more clear or simpler - the election was stolen via a well planned, well funded, effectively coordinated nation wide election rigging using just about every trick in the book and a few new ones like the various Dominion schemes thrown in to the mix.

There is even an amazing amount of evidentiary proof already, with more coming out every day.

The path to beating the steal has be worked on a lot of different levels and the process is playing out in real time.

President Trump has very clear and real path to victory. The best best way to put it is that the Texas case was a critical waypoint on the path to victory, but it was far from the ultimate destination at the end of the path.

[Dr. Franklin]

Article III, Sec. 2, Clause 2: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

POTUS is a "consul" in its original meaning from the Roman Republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_consul#Under_the_Republic Since the case affected the election of POTUS, it was within SCOTUS's obligatory original jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Texas didn't brief this point.

By way of further comment, the French Consulate refers to the period from 1799-1804 in French history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Consulate
During that time, the executive branch of government consisted of three consuls. Napoleon held the title of First Consul, as head of state. Although after the American Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, this period is sufficiently contemporaneous to demonstrate that POTUS was fairly included in that language as intended by the Founding Fathers. The textualists on SCOTUS failed us.

[SmokingJoe]

From the same Federalist earlier:

The Supreme Court's Rejection Of Texas's Election Lawsuit Failed The Constitution

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-texass-election-lawsuit-failed-the-constitution/

There is a group that knows how to play both sides of the matter. Having said that they are mostly lawyers, so you kinda expect that.

[Starboard]

Thanks for the interesting historical perspectives.

We’ll need to think long and hard about our voting processes when we form the next republic. One thing that stands out is the age old problem of people finding out they can vote themselves money are largesse from the government. We’ll need to fix that next time around (which may not be that far off). I think think there will soon be lots of discussions about our options to reclaim our liberties and sound governing principles via a new republic. Half the country seems ready for one.

[NicoDon]

Could they not re-file the case with named texas citizens as impacted to gain standing? Especially since yesterday?

[crz]

“but it was far from the ultimate destination at the end of the path.”

It was THEE last best chance of the destination of this election. You fail to remember that prior, they threw out congressman Kelly’s suit..that was a long shot but it was correct.

Both suits were well within the bounds of the constitution and they denied consideration to both.

[SmokingJoe]

You don't now what you are taking about.

The Supreme Court's Rejection Of Texas's Election Lawsuit Failed The Constitution

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/14/the-supreme-courts-rejection-of-texass-election-lawsuit-failed-the-constitution/