this is BS
the effect of the entire State of Texas’s vote was effectively nullified, rendered worthless or moot, as consequence of the election theft operation in PA, MI, WI, GA, AZ. NV, etc.
the disenfranchisement of an entire state’s electorate (and many more states’ voters, to0) is a very extreme (and criminal) adverse impact ... one that the constitutional framers clearly intended to provide judicial redress, remedy for
indeed, it is difficult to imagine a case where the plaintiffs could have had any greater “standing” than this one!!! perhaps had PA amassed its state troopers and physically invaded Texas, maybe,
also,
Regarding the misguided Roberts Court's politically correct (imo) argument for standing needed for Constitution's Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, please consider this. Justice Joseph Story had explained the following about the importance of resolving conflicts between the states in his Commentaries on the Constitution 3.
Story had explained that, because of history of conflicts between the original colonies, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave states unrestricted access to the Supremes as a last resort to try to resolve conflicts that could lead to armed conflict between the states.
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
So by refusing to consider Texas’s evidence of alleged electoral vote manipulation in another state, the misguided Roberts Court has wrongly helped to increase tension between conflicted states imo, as opposed to examining evidence to try to help calm down the states as convention delegates had intended for SCOTUS to do to promote domestic tranquility insured in the Preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [emphasis added], provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This article is all BS for a very simple reason. It is true Texas cannot make the rules for another state, but the Constitution does have stipulations. In this matter, the plaintiff states violated the US Constitution which all states must obey in the process. Texas as one state of the 50 has standing, it is that simple.
Conservatives have to obey laws.
Liberals do not.
So the libs are always going to win.
This article is correct.
I am an attorney with over a dozen years of almost exclusive Federal Court jurisdiction. One state does not have standing to sue another over how it runs its elections. A voter whose voting rights is affected has standing, as does the candidate. But not another state.
Allowing this case to proceed would result in any state suing any other over how it rungs its affairs. CA would sue TX over TX gun laws. It would be a free for all. And since SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over lawsuits between states, the SCOTUS would be overwhelmed with every state second-guessing how other states run their business.
I’ve said elsewhere, the TX lawsuit was frivolous on its face, and was just a show to placate PDJT and his supporters.
Once SCOTUS dismissed the lawsuit (as it should have) all the RINOs who signed off on it will come back to us and say “Welp, we did our best, and lost. Blame SCOTUS.” Then they will ask us for our support, our campaign contributions, and our votes, so that they can go back to business as usual.
The left won’t have to pack the Court. It’s done.
Historic cowardice.
No interest? Then I guess Biden won’t be president over the State of Texas, I presume?
“Texas argued that “the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate. “
No, their main argument (not even mentioned here) was far, far stronger - namely, that illegal votes cancel legal votes (disenfranchise legal voters), not just in the state where the illegal votes were cast - but in all states.
This argument is unassailable.
However, the SCOTUS may have done Team Trump a favor by rejecting the case, because regardless of standing, the specter of one state suing another state had serious pitfalls - at least with regard to public appearance:
The illegality in PA, for example, was perpetrated by certain large Democrat controlled precincts - they are the entities that should be sued - not the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a whole.
In fact, Pennsylvania as a whole was the victim, not the perpetrator. For public appearances, this distinction is all-important - and the Texas suit had the potential of blurring that distinction.
Put another way, it is far better for the American people to witness the good people of PA, GA, MU, AZ, WI, NV, etc. fighting for fair elections in their own states, against corrupt city Democrats who perpetrated the fraud in their state.
It sounds like he’s saying that only President Trump has standing. I believe we voters do too. Then it’s and Trump vs Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia,Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico....and we the voters to add our name.
I can understand why Texas didn’t have standing. The harm they were stating was pretty weak and speculative. What I don’t understand is why the legislators in each state didn’t take up similar lawsuits.
The constitutional right to choose the method of selecting electors is theirs so there is no question of standing. It would be a slower process with multiple lines of litigation in parallel working their way up through the lower courts but it could set some real precedent in how this situation is handled. We absolutely must get a cleaner election process or nothing but the most corrupt and underhanded people will exist in elected offices.
As a Texan, if we do not have the right to sue other states for breaking the Constitution, then NO state or Federal government has the right to intervene in our determinate course of action.
SECESSION NOW！
They could talk themselves into a new Bentley with this argument. No wonder we are so effed up.
Silly me. I read the Texas argument and thought it was about protecting voter rights not who became VP to break spinate tie votes.
These people have way too much time to contemplate their navels and other scholarly pursuits.
You have to keep a Republic to worry about future hearings in it or theory of law.
I said scrotus would punt but not because of standing. I thought it would be because the Constitution already provides for resolution of a disputed election and that had not been completed.
If the swamp is indeed global, no domestic agency can resolve or negate the problem.
Further, I do NOT want SCOTUS, or anyone OTHER than the duly elected CINC, pulling the trigger on any global military operation, that requires Time On Target precision.
As much as I didn’t like this myself, I could easily see how the precedent to challenge future elections would become a legal slugfest between states without end... and we would never have a winner again on Nov 4.
It shouldn’t be the Supreme court’s job to oversee what was clearly an enforcement issue. This was Massive fraud here. That is clearly an executive function to deny benefit of that fraud.
It was the state legislature’s jobs to fix this issue with the electors... and they punted.
Now it’s up to the US Congress to fix this... and the president’s job to prosecute it.
My retort to this bilge:
Penumbras and emanations.
Bull. I voted according to the rules and regs of voting in my Texas county. My vote was cancelled out by false and fraudulent votes in 4 different states. This was a national election and my vote was invalidated by corruption.
Texas and other states had standing but the Supremes have either been compromised or threatened.