Texas Sues GA, MI, PA and WI in USSC

[kgbsquirrel]

FIFY

I have served, and with the way things are going, it is likely I will need to again; a duty I will not shrink from.  How do you stand?

[Hawkmoon]

I don't look forward to it, but when I was released from active duty nobody said the oath I swore when I enlisted was null and void. The way I see it, I have a duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The sticky wicket is going to be figuring out which side really has the Constitution on its side?

[Ron]

I don't doubt you guys for a second but usually you take up arms against a known enemy.

Who are the patriots taking up arms against?

The right has no territory, no institutions, no hierarchy, no secure comms, no single idea, ideology or motivation that binds them together.

Half of "the right" are so deluded they don't even really realize they are actually leftists.

Are we still going to say the Supreme Court is majority conservative? The media will.

[Ron]

Has there been a case anywhere where any court has ruled on the facts instead of denying standing?

It seems so strange that not one court is curious about the facts in this election.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

On Oklahoma Shooters Association web site, a poster said, "Maybe the only silver lining in this is a spotlight will be on the Georgia election, making it a little more harder for them to cheat."

I replied with "I'm with you on your wish, but right now the focus is on "Maybe."

Then I expanded:

The ends justify the means for these people on the left. Elections are only an avenue they pursue in which they can ply their trade in disregard to fairness, righteousness, and the wishes of the majority. What ever devious moves they make will be accomplished with impunity and without remedy. The failure of the entire justice system is rampant, obvious, and tolls the death knell of the Constitution and the Union.

I have nothing but contempt in my heart and in my mind for these people who have been granted power to hold the rest of our government in check, adhered to the Constitution, and the rule of law. They have failed. They are disloyal to the Constitution. They are disloyal to We the People. The lying bastards won't even hold to the oath they took. Up until yesterday I had a modicum of faith in the Supreme Court. I have faith in God and there the list ends.

Woody

[HankB]

Has there been a case anywhere where any court has ruled on the facts instead of denying standing?

It seems so strange that not one court is curious about the facts in this election.

A term I heard first applied to the media, and which now would seem to apply to the courts, is "aggressively incurious."

[T.O.M.]

Let me throw this out, explaining why I support the decision.  If we open the gates to allow states to sue other states as to the defendant's state laws, how long until the gun grabber states start suing to end the freedoms of gun friendly/tolerant states?  Can't you see New York and California suing all other states to enforce their own gun control agendas, citing public safety and ending the illegal flow of firearms into their own states?

[WLJ]

Let me throw this out, explaining why I support the decision.  If we open the gates to allow states to sue other states as to the defendant's state laws, how long until the gun grabber states start suing to end the freedoms of gun friendly/tolerant states?  Can't you see New York and California suing all other states to enforce their own gun control agendas, citing public safety and ending the illegal flow of firearms into their own states?

Pro 2A states being sued by Anti 2A states for not violating the Constitution? Sad part is I can see them actually trying this and maybe even winning with the right activist, the Constitution is living document, judges.  

[Ron]

Let me throw this out, explaining why I support the decision.  If we open the gates to allow states to sue other states as to the defendant's state laws, how long until the gun grabber states start suing to end the freedoms of gun friendly/tolerant states?  Can't you see New York and California suing all other states to enforce their own gun control agendas, citing public safety and ending the illegal flow of firearms into their own states?

What happens instead is we open the gates to widespread acknowledgment that our elections are fake and that there is no recourse in the courts.

It's a lose lose.

A blog I read mentioned your very concerns and speculates that the Trump team never was counting on the supreme court and has other intentions to resolve this predicament. It was a necessary step though.

[Angel Eyes]

Pro 2A states being sued by Anti 2A states for not violating the Constitution? Sad part is I can see them actually trying this and maybe even winning with the right activist, the Constitution is living document, judges.  

Counterpoint: it would also open the door for pro-RKBA states to sue California, New York, Massachusetts, et al. for violating the Second Amendment (something the Federal gov't should already be doing).

[zahc]

Let me throw this out, explaining why I support the decision.  If we open the gates to allow states to sue other states as to the defendant's state laws, how long until the gun grabber states start suing to end the freedoms of gun friendly/tolerant states?  Can't you see New York and California suing all other states to enforce their own gun control agendas, citing public safety and ending the illegal flow of firearms into their own states?

If those states can show the other states' laws are unconstitutional AND that they are impacting them then yes, absolutely states should be able to sue other states. It's the purpose of the supreme court. This situation is terrifying in ny opinion. If TX doesn't have standing to sue other states for violating the constitution in election matters it means there is bo recourse. There is no point of the supreme court if something this important doesn't have standing. Granted the facts and the law of the cases may be bogus so I wouldn't be as upset if they tossed it. Refusing to hear it is much worse in my opinion. I think they refused to hear it because they suspect the facts and law are straightforward, and they are too cowardly to do their jobs.

[zahc]

Counterpoint: it would also open the door for pro-RKBA states to sue California, New York, Massachusetts, et al. for violating the Second Amendment (something the Federal gov't should already be doing).

The door should be already open! They have every right to do that. They did such things countless times during the era of slavery. And the USSC can look at the case and toss it in the trash. But rejecting the case dor no standing in such a clearly legitimate matter is a bombshell precedent.

[Angel Eyes]

The door should be already open!

 

Yes, I agree.

But rejecting the case dor[sic] no standing in such a clearly legitimate matter is a bombshell precedent.

Yup, I agree here too.  Claiming that Texas and 17 other states do not have standing is a dubious claim at best.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Let me throw this out, explaining why I support the decision.  If we open the gates to allow states to sue other states as to the defendant's state laws, how long until the gun grabber states start suing to end the freedoms of gun friendly/tolerant states?  Can't you see New York and California suing all other states to enforce their own gun control agendas, citing public safety and ending the illegal flow of firearms into their own states?

That wasn't the case here. Texas et.al. sued the four states because those 4 states didn't follow their OWN law in the fashion proscribed in the Constitution. Those four states did nothing to stem the unconstitutional actions of those involved in the egregiously erroneous actions.  That is hardly anything like you have suggested with the laws being different from one state to the next.

Oklahoma brought suit against Colorado when Colorado legalized marijuana contrary to United States law. The Court dissed their duty on that case as well. I see a disturbing trend forming regarding the failure to enforce the rule of law - and by the highest court in the land! What is the next law to be disregarded - Treason? Insurrection? Bribery? Slavery? Counterfeiting - oh wait! Bitcoin! Too late.

Too late on abortion, too. The right to life of the most innocent of us has been disregarded.

Ah, just forget it.

Anyone have have some saucy and delightful suggestions for living a Laissez-faire life style? Now's your chance! 

Woody

[RoadKingLarry]

What is the next law to be disregarded - Treason? Insurrection? Bribery? Slavery? Counterfeiting - oh wait! Bitcoin! Too late.

With the crowd that will be soon running the show I wouldn't be surprised to see pedophilia being next on the list to become non-crimes.
 

[zahc]

What's extra puzzling is that if the Court were under pressure and had a desire to "settle" the election dispute, they would see the case and dismiss it. They could dismiss it on the weakness of evidence, or on faulty interpretation of the law, or on both at the same time, and send a message to the nation that the case is closed, Trump lost, it's final, the Republicans are just being a bunch of whiners, etc. etc. By refusing to hear the case they are really throwing fuel on the fire rather than settling anything. If the "most secure election ever" camp believed their own position then they should be up in arms as well since the SC is refusing to validate their position. But I think they don't really believe their own position and they know they are on thin ice, and the SC knows it too and the SC knows it's options are to 1. Hear the case and rule contrary to the plain law and constitution 2. Hear the case and affirm the obvious reading and intent of the law or 3. Just pretend there ia no standing so they don't have to do their jobs by doing either one. If the SC really thought the case was flimsy they would hear it and toss it.

[RocketMan]

Nice analysis, zahc.  I think your option 3 is what the SCOTUS chose to do.  It was the easiest way for them to not get tangled up in another hanging chad presidential election mess, something they have said for years they would not do.

[charby]

There has been zero talk of taking up arms from anyone, except from armchair warriors who are always ready to [insert] have other people [/insert] take up arms.

FIFY

WINNER WINNER....

[Andiron]

There has been zero talk of taking up arms from anyone, except from armchair warriors who are always ready to take up arms.

I, for one, entirely respect the sanctity of the vote and the omniscience of the Supreme Court.  They have spoken!  I'll now go back to life as usual, confident in the knowledge Our System Works!

[Hawkmoon]

Let me throw this out, explaining why I support the decision.  If we open the gates to allow states to sue other states as to the defendant's state laws, how long until the gun grabber states start suing to end the freedoms of gun friendly/tolerant states?  Can't you see New York and California suing all other states to enforce their own gun control agendas, citing public safety and ending the illegal flow of firearms into their own states?

The problem with that argument, counselor, is that in this case the aforementioned state laws directly affect people and government entities (other states) outside of the states being sued. Obviously, Texas should not have any standing in questions about the election of the governor or state legislature in another state. But, when the elections in other states dictate the makeup of the federal government, and that directly impacts on Texas, then I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Texas has standing.

Respectfully, I view this as the SCOTUS choosing a flimsy excuse as a way to avoid having to rule on the issue.

{Edit to add} It won't happen, of course, but this election makes it clear that what should be done is to separate the election of federal officers from the election of state officers. The election mechanism for federal officers should be the same in every state, and should at a minimum conform to the UN standards for free and fair elections.

[DittoHead]

Oklahoma brought suit against Colorado when Colorado legalized marijuana contrary to United States law. The Court dissed their duty on that case as well. I see a disturbing trend forming regarding the failure to enforce the rule of law - and by the highest court in the land!

This disturbing trend needs a name. Something catchy. Maybe "Federalism"?

But, when the elections in other states dictate the makeup of the federal government, and that directly impacts on Texas, then I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Texas has standing.

Keep going along those lines and you'll be arguing against the electoral college.

[Ron]

I, for one, entirely respect the sanctity of the vote and the omniscience of the Supreme Court.  They have spoken!  I'll now go back to life as usual, confident in the knowledge Our System Works!

Those on the right have had all confidence in pretty much all three branches of government demolished.

It’s a real shitshow.

[Andiron]

Those on the right have had all confidence in pretty much all three branches of government demolished.

It’s a real shitshow.

Alea iacta est

[Boomhauer]

With the crowd that will be soon running the show I wouldn't be surprised to see pedophilia being next on the list to become non-crimes.
 

Within 5 years open pedophilia will be legalized in some states. It basically all but is at this point.

The drag queen story hour *expletive deleted*it, kiddie trannies, etc is all about it.

[Hawkmoon]

But, when the elections in other states dictate the makeup of the federal government, and that directly impacts on Texas, then I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Texas has standing.

Keep going along those lines and you'll be arguing against the electoral college.

Not at all. The electoral college is built into the Constitution, and it affects all states equally.