Alito and Thomas dissent:
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020ORDER IN PENDING CASE155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
The Supreme Court is sitting this one out.
It was a long shot. Interestly, the dissenting justices were not appointed by Trump.
Standing is a handy doctrine when courts don’t want to touch something. It was made up out of whole cloth by the Court in 1922. I note the gutless wonders of the Court made this a Friday night dump, as all politicians do when they are sending out something controversial.
The idea that a state does not have standing to assert a provision of the Constitution is risible. I expected something like this after they refused to take up the Pennsylvania case 9-0, but it still shows the judiciary at its very worst: cowardly, deceitful and feckless.
It’s another nail in the coffin of the notion that our appellate courts are willing and able to be neutral arbitrators. The Democratic Party in Fulton County, Ga. is now clear to run another ballot box stuffing operation. They’ll certainly have Raffersperger covering for them.
Basically, the federal courts are a scam. Gen. Flynn is only a free man because of executive clemency and none of the characters behind the Crossfire Hurricane scam (or the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton and her bleachbit-and-hammers crew or the whole coverup on behalf of Lois Lerner) has been brought to book. The courts consistently issued absurd rulings against perfectly ordinary executive action, even second-guessing banal question on the Census. Seems everyone’s got standing except aggrieved candidates and aggrieved voters.
I guess stealing elections is legal. So we should do it too!
Actually CTT I expect that to be the unacknowledged lesson drawn from all this.
What amazes me to think about is that if any Republican had been appointed to the presidency then that president’s supreme court nominee’s would have been even more worthless than President Trump’s.
Any Republican other than President Trump, I mean.
The other unacknowledged truth is that violence works.
Expect more of it, and worse.
A very bad sign for the future of our nation. It appears that there is no remedy for blatant election theft.
Our political system requires free and fair elections. If they can not be guaranteed our national survival is in grave jeopardy.
If there’s a hidden blessing, maybe it’s that faithful Christians will turn all the more to the Lord our God and trust in Him rather than man made institutions.
Prediction: Within six months prominent politicians and celebrities will be openly gloating about how they stole the election.
So tell me, how does everyone feel having voted in the last presidential election?
I look forward to the next election when 50 billion votes are cast and two different people are declared president elect anyway.
Ben Shapiro makes the argument that we just dodged a bullet. If states were able to sue each other over indirect impacts, what’s to stop New York from making Florida redraw its Congressional districts, or California to sue Alabama over its anti-abortion laws?
Pinky,
What’s to stop them now? You really think that if California sued Alabama, that the leftists on the Supreme Court wouldn’t eagerly agree to hear the case? You really think that the only thing stopping them from trying that was the outcome of this case?
The dumbest “conservative” argument in history is the “We can’t use legitimate applications of the law, because it might inspire the left to use them illegitimately” (ex. “We can’t sue people on the left who are actually libeling us because they might start suing us frivolously in return.”)
It’s dumb for two reasons:
1.) If we are not going to make legitimate use of legal redress, why even have them available?
2.) The left never waits for permission for the right. They always try to punish us regardless of what we’ve done to them.
Doesn’t surprise me in the least that Shapiro would make that argument though.
We already live under California’s regulatory scheme for products from fruit to cars.
And now Joe is going to Gavin up so more executive order goodies for us–this time, apparently, with the supine compliance of the federal judiciary.
Doesn’t surprise me in the least that Shapiro would make that argument though.
I like Ben, but I don’t think he understood the legal argument. The whole point was to follow the Court from Bush v. Gore that the power over a presidential election rests in state legislatures, and that this power had been usurped by other actors in the states in question. The same argument was made by members of the legislatures who sought to join the Texas suit. The only thing dodged in this suit was the responsibility of the Court to hear the suit.
Prediction: Within six months prominent politicians and celebrities will be openly gloating about how they stole the election.
That’s what I expect. At a low level some already are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_bZsaNdxEU
6 months? I give it 3.
IIRC on one of the Viva-Barnes videos Barnes said that many judges are institutional players. That was his primary criticism of ACB. That the establishment looks out for its own. Again IIRC Barnes questioned the quality of the judicial picks of the Federalist Society. Over the years many GOP judicial picks have drifted left. I can’t remember any Democrat party picks that have drifted right. Based on the history, there appears to be something broken with the GOP judicial selection process.
States are already (or at least they were until today) able to sue each other over indirect impacts. To quote Glenn Reynolds, “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.”
It’s one thing for the Court to argue, this is a political question for you guys to work out amongst yourselves, but the fact that the court has chosen to insert itself into any number of political issues in the last 70 years (abortion, sodomy laws, gay marriage, transgender bathroom rules, etc.), shows that in this case it’s a dodge.
If the Republicans had any guts, they’d do what they could to muck up the works for the next two years, and then run in 2022 on a platform of building the kind of supermajority that could settle all the family the family business (q.v.) in one fell swoop.
I’m talking about impeaching Biden and Harris and 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and sweeping reforms to the civil service laws, among other things.
But for the most part, if the Republicans had guts, they’d be something else.
So that leaves Article V. And I’ve been in favor of an Article V convention for just about 10 years now.
And yes, I know that’s likely to end badly. But it’s like Frank Herbert said, “the forms must be obeyed.”
Agree with Don, Shapiro is out of his element. The reason why there is no bullet being dodged here (except the spineless Justices dodging public criticism and loss of their status on the DC cocktail circuit) is that there is a specific procedural requirement in Article II that has been ignored by the defendant states, and this in itself should be grounds for any state to bring action against another. And as Ernst points out, the Court itself already ruled in a less clear situation that a state had standing to assert a claim against a Federal agency for indirect damages.
Don, please talk me out of my fear that we have seen the last fair national election in this country, and likely the last ever Republican president.
Don, please talk me out of my fear that we have seen the last fair national election in this country, and likely the last ever Republican president.
The Dems have succeeded electing a President through theft as their sole accomplishment. I think that sets them up for a lambasting in 2022 and 2024.
As for cheating the words of an old song come to mind: Anything you can do I can do better.
Case in point, the Dem seats flipped to the GOP this year in Califoria. The Republicans seem to have gotten a handle on the black art of ballot harvesting out there.
In politics, as in war, you are always teaching your adversary.
OK, thanks. I feel better. 😁
All three of Trump’s nominees flipped him an unconstitutional bird. And the only two who didn’t were Bush & Bush nominees. Just when you thought 2020 couldn’t get any more strange.
Alito has been red pilled and Thomas was born red pilled. After what he experienced Kavanaugh should know better.
You guys need a reality check. Sic very conservative judges, all Republican appointed, three appointed by Trump completely rejected an absurd attempt by Texas to control how other states run their elections. Not only has every single judge (a majority of whom are Republican appointed, several appointed by Trump) who has looked at any of the 50+ bogus cases that were filed rejected them as frivolous and baseless, they’ve also gone out of their way to say so. Only in fantasy land was there “massive fraud” in an election President-elect Biden won by over 7 million votes.
You guys need a reality check. Sic very conservative judges, all Republican appointed, three appointed by Trump completely rejected an absurd attempt by Texas to control how other states run their elections.
John, you have no idea what you are talking about. What half the country, including Texas, was asking the court to do was to find that in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia the role of the legislatures in controlling the election of electors had been usurped by other actors in these states. This is impermissible under the Constitution as the Supreme Court found in Bush v. Gore two decades ago. The Court dodged deciding the issue by claiming that Texas had no standing to assert that the Constitution had been violated, which is risible, particularly since members of the legislatures in each of these states were petitioning to join the Texas initiated suit. If you wish to attain Leftist Troll status on this blog, you will have to learn to do your homework. We do have our standards here, and they are high, even for Trolls.
Alito was always pretty good from what I can gather. Bush the Younger picked him after his attempt to shove Harriet Miers down our throats blew up.
Thomas was a hard leftist for a short time in his early adulthood. Of course, he has since red pilled. Thomas has been my favorite justice for some time. I had always thought he was better than even Scalia.
Kavanaugh should know better. But, first of all, he was never a reliable originalist. Secondly, the treatment he got from the senate dems apparently traumatized him. Sadly, that is a common phenomena.
John, your definition of “completely rejected” is… creative.
They dodged the question. Which is disappointing, and corrosive to the nation, but counter to your continued attempts is still not refuting it.
It does make it clear that threatening violence works, though.
Thomas was a hard leftist for a short time in his early adulthood.
True, but as his autobiography shows he was always a born outsider and the attempts by white liberals to “help him” always struck him as patronizing and insulting. The attempt by Biden to “high tech lynch” him during his confirmation merely underlined for him that they were adversaries.
I am not sure “the Republicans will cheat better next time” is a cheering thought. (1) It is wrong; (2) I wouldn’t expect the same refusal to investigate and enforce.
Oh yes, Thomas saw himself as an outsider at least since his time in the seminary where he experienced racism.
The Dems have set the new rules and the Supreme Court will do bupkis. If they will cheat with impunity so will Republicans. Politics is never conducted in a vacuum and every action produces a reaction. That this is bad for the nation should be evident to all and will be evident to the Democrats the first time they are outcheated.
Problem for republicans is, they are not nearly as good at cheating as the dems. They’re actually better at bending over and taking it in the shorts from the dems.
One thing, among several, I will say for Trump is that he is an exception. When he wins, he acts like he won. And even when he loses. He took that page right out of their playbook. He may leave office next month but he will not leave the public stage. I think he do everything in his power to make the Democrats regret they ever stole that election.
Yep and Trump is having an impact on the party. The Texas suit is the start of something not the end of something.
The problem for Republican cheating is that cheating is always easier in urban settings.
Thought on how this plays out in the next election if the dems fulfill their promise of packing the court?
If they attempt court packing, they could have a full scale political revolt on their hands, and not just from Republicans, and far more potentially to worry about than just the next election.
Only because of Republican honesty. There are plenty of counties in rural areas completely dominated by Republicans. Take away that honesty, and a lot of stuffing could occur in out of the way precincts.
Don,
You are one of the only people I have seen that gives actual reasons behind why we can expect a Republican comeback in 2022 or 2024 even if the steal goes through. Pretty much everyone else I see that makes that claim does it from one of two standpoints: either an assumption that democrats won’t ramp up their fraud efforts in the next election cycle, or a false to facts narrative that Trump lost fairly (often citing the reason for his loss as being his personality turning people off and causing them to stay home, despite the big increase to his vote total). It really is gratifying to see someone who thinks that something can be salvaged from this political system without simply ignoring reality.
What needs to happen is states need to enact laws that mandate counties report election results from most populous to least populous. The urban machines can’t cheat if they don’t know how many votes they need to manufacture.
Also, no vote totals reported until all the votes have been tallied and recorded. Then reporting happens in order in a short time span.
Ernst
I made the same suggestion to my congressman after Doug Jones stole the Alabama race to fill Session’s seat. Moore was winning until Jackson County’s count was delayed then reported just enough to overcome Moore’s lead.
Everyone wrote off Moore as a bad candidate, but no one wanted to investigate what I saw as very suspicious for election fraud. This could have been an opportunity to identify, study and counteract a Democratic technique to steal elections.
What worries me with the SCOTUS refusing to take the Texas case is that the Democrats will push using local courts and governors to undermine the authority of State Legislators to define election laws in accordance with our Constitution. It should be clear to all that the Democrats are only concerned with achieving and maintaining authority and have to respect for our nation’s Constitution or Citizens.
I recall GK Chesterton writing that a fence should never be removed until one knows why it was placed. Perhaps what we are now experiencing is why State Legislators appointed Senators until the 17th amendment. I wonder if part of the authority given to State legislators was a corrective mechanism for corrupted elections. With State Legislators fighting to maintain its constitutional control, having control over the appointment of senators would be a valuable tool in this struggle for control of its constitutional authority. With the present situation the popular vote for Senators makes it easier to corrupt the election process for Senators.
This whole process makes me more appreciative of the Catholic principle of Subsidiarity. This struggle is very complex and on a state level the fight may be between county governments verse a corrupt city willing to control state representation by fraud.
You could also resolve the “discovered” ballots by enacting laws that treat completed ballots as secret documents. I understand we have some very serious penalties for mishandling those kinds of things –unless your last name is Clinton.
State legislatures have to fix this, and soon. I like the things Ernst suggested. I also think paper ballots marked with indelible ink, manual counting in every precinct (the more people who are involved in something, the harder it is to get away with cheating), and strict voter ID requirements are necessary. People need to push back on the nonsensical idea (not to mention insulting to minorities) that voter ID is “racist” or “vote suppression.” Please. That means every other civilized nation on Earth is guilty of racist voter suppression, which is absurd. There are other steps, I’m sure, that can be taken, but I don’t know the process well enough to come up with them.
The overlook fact is that if the Deamoncrats win in Georgia and take control of the Senate they will no longer need to cheat to win. By next election, there will be 15 to 20 million new voters, formerly illegal aliens.
I suspect it will be worse than that. 15 to 20 million new voters (let’s face it, many of whom have already voted) just secures the Democrat majority. The real damage comes when the Republican party collapses for a lack of voters (because what’s the point of voting Republican when all they do is make excuses for why they can’t promote or advance your interests, which they pretend to care about, but they still need your money; and that’s when they’re in the majority!).
Maybe Trump has enough staying power to remake the Republican party for a generation or more; that remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt it.
Trump got 40 percent of the Hispanic vote this time. How would he fare after four years of Democrat misrule?
Viva-Barnes had a very interesting live stream. Barnes was critical of the SCOTUS rejection of the Texas lawsuit. He also brought up how many judges are institutional judges and even ones named by Trump were establishment players. Barnes also made critical remarks about Bill Barr and Durham. The live stream is on YouTube titled “Ep. 39: Texas Lawsuit DISMISSED; Sullivan Ruling; Facebook & MORE! Viva & Barnes LIVE!.” It will be cross posted at Rumble.
*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5IPEvYchMo