Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrongly so and likely for the reasons posted here in this thread.
It was a matter of Constitutional Law and that Texas and other States had no standing is an obvious (and knowingly) bad call.
Just because some like their decision not to review it doesn't change Law and the SCOTUS responsibility which they abdicated.
It was widely considered a Hail Mary by Constitutional experts of any repute. I expect even Texas Attorney General Paxton gave it much of a chance; it was to give him exposure and to declare himself firmly in Trump's camp. Texas' solicitor general is the attorney whose role it is to represent Texas at the Supreme Court. Kyle Hawkins held that position at the time and did not sign on to the suit. He has since resigned. Coincidence? Neither he nor Paxton has indicated why. https://apnews.com/article/us-suprem...11da601dc8f8ce
I, for one, am glad that California, for example, cannot sue my state to change the voting rules in my state that were enacted by representatives accountable to the people of this state. I don't want another state, whose representatives I have no voice in electing and are not accountable to me and my neighbors, deciding how we run our elections. Is that a can of worms you want?
To "move on" without our Supreme Court addressing the questions raised
The Supreme Court addressed Texas' complaint by ruling that it had no standing. For those of you who still cannot understand what 'standing' means, Texas did not show proof of harm when other states updated their own election laws.
Of course ... Texas updated its own election laws before November 2020 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
As explained in the OP, our very own Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
Texas did not provide enough evidence that it was harmed, and did not provide evidence of "corruption" in the elections process. How many times do we have to explain this to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
If the SC over turned the election results as they should have
That would not have happened, even if the Court decided to hear Texas' case.
Quote:
The SC declined in order to save the country from the grief, the cost, the lives, the violence and potentially a Civil War.
The Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Constitution.
Quote:
The SC has now allowed any state to violate their own election laws in order to influence an election to turn out as they want it to.
Uh ... wrong. I can't believe people are still spouting this nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster
I thought conservatives stood for state's rights and sovereignty and had an aversion to judicial activism.
Only when the judicial winds are blowing their way, apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
The only problem is, the Supreme Court never gave its rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing
Texas could produce no evidence of harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
There is no shifting the burden of proof. What is at question is the Supreme Court refusing to hear evidence that state government officials allowed and condoned unconstitutional election activities to take place in the defendant States.
Because Texas could not produce proof that it was harmed by individual states managing their own elections processes; therefore, Texas had no standing with the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
The problem is, if it is a dead issue as you claim, then the Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
Drama Queen Alert.
How did the states named in the complaint violate "our federal Constitution"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
They did not take the Case and the "final say" was avoided.
Refusing to hear the case is "final say".
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
But there were no answers from the Supreme Court.
You keep asking this question, and more than one person has answered it. What is the problem, exactly?
Also, the cases you cite do not support your argument.
United States v. Classic (1941): This was not a case of original jurisdiction. It was a criminal case, so standing was not an issue. You are also quoting from the dissenting opinion, which means it is not the opinion of the Court.
McPherson v. Blacker (1892): This was also not a case of original jurisdiction. Standing was not an issue. The plaintiffs were nominees for electors in Michigan who filed suit against the Secretary of State of Michigan. The Court considered the matter after the Michigan Supreme Court had ruled on it. There was a question aboout whether an aspect of the statute at issue was conrary to the federal constitution. The Court wrote "We are not authorized to revise the conclusions of the state court on these matters of local law, and, those conclusions being accepted, it follows that the decision of the federal questions is to be regarded as necessary to the determination of the cause." The Court determined the statute at issue was not in contravention os the federal constitution. It did not consider the state questions.
Bush v. Gore (2000): Again, this was not a case of original jurisdiction nor was standing at issue - obviously Gore had a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of that election. Like McPherson, the decision of the Court was based on the federal constitution, particularly whether the counting method in Florida violated the equal protection clause.
In short, none of these cases even remotely support the notion that Texas has standing to challenge Pennsylvania's state laws.
But, as already pointed out, the Supreme Court never explained why Texas does not have standing, nor did the Court explain why it asserted the Texas lawsuit did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.
However, our Supreme Court has, in the past, emphatically pointed out, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, “convey the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."
Also See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) citing McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), "we explained that Art. II, §1, cl. 2, "convey[s] the broadest power of determination" and "leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method" of appointment. Id., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring).
And so, we get back to the question: what is the Court’s rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
You know, maybe you ought to write directly to the SC and explain to them why they're wrong. And quit harassing all us dummies about it.
I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear from you.
My goodness. This is a community forum where people come to discuss the issues of the day. I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning why the Roberts' Court issued the order they did, and did so without any rational or legal reasoning behind it.
The order does not make sense when reviewing past rulings touching on the same issue.
My goodness. This is a community forum where people come to discuss the issues of the day. I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning why the Roberts' Court issued the order they did, and did so without any rational or legal reasoning behind it.
The order does not make sense when reviewing past rulings touching on the same issue.
JWK
It IS a community forum, but like in all communities there are well....how ones put it.....loons you rush past because they spout silly things.
I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning why the Roberts' Court issued the order they did, and did so without any rational or legal reasoning behind it.
And you've been provided with that reasoning from muiltiple people, yet you choose to ignore or disregard that information. You're on your own, pal. The Supreme Court decision is well documented. If that's not good enough for you, give John Roberts a ring. Let us know how that goes.
Supreme Court was right on this. The lawsuit was an embarrassment to Texans and all of the USA. History wont be kind to the groveling, sniveling political snakes who tried to illegally cling to power in 2020. As shameful a lot if there ever was one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
