As I expected, effectively ending the attempts to use the courts to overturn the results in the suspicous battleground states. The court ruled 7-2, with Alito and Thomas dissenting, that Texas (and the other states associated with the suit) did not have standing to ask for redress of the voting violations of voting law in other states. Apparently, if you follow on the court path, no one ever has standing. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. Jonathon Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy, Supreme Court Unanimously Denies Texas Emergency Relief, Refuses to Grant Motion for Leave to File (Updated)
This evening, in Texas v. Pennsylvania, a unanimous Supreme Court refused to grant Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton an injunction or other relief that would bar the selection of presidential electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As detailed in the just-released order, seven justices would deny the Texas AG's Motion for Leave to file a complaint, citing a lack of Article III standing. Justices Alito and Thomas, citing their long-standing belief that the Court lacks the discretion to deny the motion, would have granted the motion, but would have provided Texas with no other relief. In other words, not a single justice believed Texas deserved the extraordinary relief it sought.
John Solomon at JTN, U.S. Supreme Court rejects Texas challenge to election "Supreme Court's rejection extinguishes one of last hopes for Trump to reverse the election results." Ace, in red italic font, Supreme Court Cites Bullshit Dodge "Lack of Standing" to Dismiss Texas Case.
"Standing" is a doctrine without much rigor. Judges find standing when they want to take a case, and don't find it when they want to bury a case.Insty, BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Lawsuit.
“The Supreme Court, 7-2, voted to deny Texas AG Paxton’s motion for leave to file its election complaint. Justices Alito and Thomas would grant Motion for Leave, but provide no other relief.”
The statement that Texas lacks standing would seem to implicitly overrule Massachusetts v. EPA, a case that found expanded standing for states, though in the “Climate Change” context. But then, I’ve told my students that I doubt that case stood for more than climate change hysteria’s ability to influence
John RobertsAnthony Kennedy.
The appeal of dismissing on standing grounds, of course, is that the Court won’t have to deal with any of the factual allegations.
At Hot Air AllahPundit crows, Breaking: SCOTUS Tosses Texas Suit
The only doubts were (a) whether the Court would feel obliged to hear the case before ruling against Texas, on the theory that it has no discretion to reject cases arising out of original jurisdiction, and (b) whether it would issue a lengthy opinion attacking the flaws in Texas’s complaint or just give it the back of its hand.
Althouse reads NYT so you don't have to, "The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the presidential election results in four battleground states..."
Coty Journal, In their handling of the Trump campaign’s election lawsuits, judges appointed by Republicans—including by Trump himself—have demonstrated their devotion to judicial principle.
Today we are immersed in a great debate about the nature of constitutional interpretation. Judges appointed by Republican presidents believe that the lodestar of constitutional interpretation should be the document’s original meaning. Democrats disagree. This is a legitimate matter of political contention—but many Democrats maintain that Republican judges are corrupt hacks, foot soldiers in a vast right-wing conspiracy. Their probity and attention to the facts in Trump’s election lawsuits should silence these baseless charges. Judges appointed by Republican presidents, including Trump, have punctiliously followed the law and protected the Constitution. They deserve the gratitude of all Americans, regardless of party.
And some words from Insty's Facebook feed:
“I don’t trust the Dems. Nor do I trust the Republicans. But I do trust people like Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas. SCOTUS has ruled. I think they are erring on the side of leaving states alone, which from a certain standpoint is the right call. But man, people, there is so much work to do in the next four years. To ensure the *next* fraud is not nearly so easy for the DNC. They exploited a unique situation: the Covid Panic. Circumstances will not always align for this. And, they’ve cheated before. It’s how Kennedy won in 1960. It does not mean we’re destined forever to be disenfranchised. It just means the Prole Rebellion has to go GROUND GAME in precincts and in the state legislatures. Nothing is permanent. Biden-Harris can be survived. Gotta make sure the Prole Rebellion doesn’t exit with Trump. It should never have been about one man anyway. It should be all about the idea: of the Little Man wresting back control of his government from would-be oligarchs and technocrats.”
According to Jordan, “all the strange things about this election” merit a deep-dive.
“Seventy-five million voted for President Trump … close to 60 million people think the election was stolen” and “a third of the electorate does not believe” the balloting,” he said.
“That is not a healthy situation.”
Jerry Newcombe at Da Lid, Is It Dangerous to Fight Voter Fraud? (The Dems And MSM Believe Investigations Are Bad)
And a flashback from PM, FLASHBACK: Obama attained power by questioning ballots and signatures
Post a Comment