SCOTUS rejects Texas election suit

[Bob Juch]

Says they have no standing.

[Bob Juch]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/11/supreme ... tates.html

[SpacemanSpiff]

I wonder what sort of zombies lawsuit that Team Trump will come up with now.

[silverscreenselect]

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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections,

Alito and Thomas dissented because of their pre-existing view that the Court is required to hear any case brought by one state against another. They felt the Court should have at least heard the case.

Trump also lost another case in a Wisconsin trial court today.

The Electoral College formal vote is Monday.

[BackInTex]

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,“the Supreme Court said.

Can someone explain how the court can say Texas has not demonstrated..... if they refuse to hear the arguments? Seems they are letting the court of public opinion and the media argue the case to them.

They have abdicated their role because, in my opinion, they are weak and don't want to take the hard, unpopular cases. Roe is safe, too.

[Bob78164]

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,“the Supreme Court said.

Can someone explain how the court can say Texas has not demonstrated..... if they refuse to hear the arguments? Seems they are letting the court of public opinion and the media argue the case to them.

They have abdicated their role because, in my opinion, they are weak and don't want to take the hard, unpopular cases. Roe is safe, too.

The party that wants to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction has the obligation to PLEAD facts establishing that jurisdiction exists. That requirement includes an obligation to plead standing. Texas did not and could not satisfy that requirement for the obvious reason that how Georgia chooses to run its elections does not harm Texas. After all, Texas would have had nothing to beef about if, say, the Georgia Legislature had chosen (before Election Day) not to hold an election at all but simply appoint Biden's electors.

I'll agree with you, though, that the Court has abdicated its role. It should have issued a much more forceful decision excoriating the lawyers who are attacking our democracy by trying to overturn the voters' expressed will. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Can someone explain how the court can say Texas has not demonstrated..... if they refuse to hear the arguments? Seems they are letting the court of public opinion and the media argue the case to them.

The issues that Texas raised in this suit are pretty much the same issues that have been litigated over and over in the various lawsuits that Trump has filed in various lower state and federal courts where he has lost over and over. Many of these other cases have been heard by conservative or Republican judges, including Federal judges appointed by Trump or Bush. There is simply no legal merit to any of these cases and no proof of any fraud. And a party looking to overturn an election has a very high burden of proof to meet.

No one mentions this, but I'm sure that the Biden campaign could have raised just as many claims about fraud and irregularity in the various states that Trump won. My understanding is that Texas has an election law very similar to the one that their AG challenged in Pennsylvania.

[Bob Juch]

Can someone explain how the court can say Texas has not demonstrated..... if they refuse to hear the arguments? Seems they are letting the court of public opinion and the media argue the case to them.

The issues that Texas raised in this suit are pretty much the same issues that have been litigated over and over in the various lawsuits that Trump has filed in various lower state and federal courts where he has lost over and over. Many of these other cases have been heard by conservative or Republican judges, including Federal judges appointed by Trump or Bush. There is simply no legal merit to any of these cases and no proof of any fraud. And a party looking to overturn an election has a very high burden of proof to meet.

No one mentions this, but I'm sure that the Biden campaign could have raised just as many claims about fraud and irregularity in the various states that Trump won. My understanding is that Texas has an election law very similar to the one that their AG challenged in Pennsylvania.

I understand that Texas was saying that the governors of the states had changed the election rules when their legislatures should have done that. But Texas did the same thing.

[Bob Juch]

Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell on Friday charged that some of his Republican colleagues shouldn't be sworn in for the next session of Congress, accusing them of violating the U.S. Constitution and attempting to "demolish democracy" by backing President Donald Trump's effort to overturn the November election, which he lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chair of the Committee on House Administration, the New Jersey congressman specifically condemned the more than 100 House Republicans who are supporting a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that aims to block the four key battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—all of which Biden won—from voting in the Electoral College.

Pascrell cites Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which gives each chamber of Congress final authority over membership, as well as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says:

No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

"Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as members of the Congress," writes the longtime Trump critic.

"These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber," he adds.

Pascrell urges Pelosi and Lofgren to exercise their power to figure how they can respond to these alleged constitutional violations and, if possible, refuse to seat incoming members who, in his words, are "seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator."

Their actions "must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms," he argues. "The moment we face now may be without parallel since 1860. The fate of our democracy depends on our meeting that moment."

[silverscreenselect]

I understand that Texas was saying that the governors of the states had changed the election rules when their legislatures should have done that. But Texas did the same thing.

Whether or not the governors of these various states had the power to change the election rules in the manner they did is a matter of state law and not U.S. Constitutional law. The proper forum to address these issues is in the state courts, and these cases were all litigated in state court previously. Texas has no business suing another state because they don't like its laws. Presumably, New York or California could sue Texas if they didn't like any Texas laws either.