Dec 11 2020

Source: U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is the full text of the SCOTUS order in the Texas election lawsuit:

“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.”

45 thoughts on “Dec 11 2020

  1. That sure sounds like the death knell of court challenges.

    Texas has no “judicially cognizable interest” in how other states conduct their elections is legalese for “it’s none of your damn business “.

    The only reason Texas, and many of the previous suits, were filed AFTER to election results became obvious or official indicates that there was no problem with timeline tweaks to accommodate pandemic issues.

    It was a matter of seeing who won, then complain.

    Texas’ suit was so full of lies, crappy data and insinuations based on already judicially discredited assertions about voter fraud. Virtually every bit of evidence has been shot down by courts and judges as garbage.

    Of course that is prima facia evidence that everyone is in on the “fix”, there is a deep state, Trump is the Messiah and I would be a better golfer except for the urban voter.

    That 125 GOP Congressmen signed a statement that they will support this stuff is simply fear of Trump. He demanded the “full list” from Congress.

    “25, wow! I am surprised there are so many. We have just begun to fight. Please send me a list of the 25 RINOS. I read the Fake News Washington Post as little as possible!” DJT tweet

    “Hey, Rocco, gimme dah names o dose Republicans who will kiss my ass. I got “friends” in primaries for dah rest o dem traitors. And pardons and endorsements for dose who did plant lips on my big patootie.”

    This quote is from linguistic data extrapolation that shows a one in a quadrillion chance that he did not say those words.

    For those who actually think outside the bubble, what incurred was, in fact, an attempted “autocoup”. Those who come from many Latin American nations know all to well how it works. One of the most used methods in the playbook is the discredited election along with compliant courts. Fortunately, Trump has not bribed enough judges to pull this off.

    It is not over yet. There are still things that a seditious president can do to screw up our nation.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. RE: “Texas’ suit was so full of lies, crappy data and insinuations based on already judicially discredited assertions about voter fraud.”

      Texas’ suit didn’t contain any “assertions about voter fraud.” This is key to understanding the events we are witnessing.

      Like

      1. But the assertions of fraud were key. It was to show the harm created by the “illegal” election law tweaks.

        “ For the general election, at least 30 states plus the District of Columbia have made at least some changes that will make it easier and more accessible for voters to cast their ballots from home. These changes include removing strict excuse requirements or allowing COVID-19 concerns to be a valid excuse to vote absentee, allowing ballot drop boxes, offering prepaid postage on election mail and proactively sending all active registered voters applications to request an absentee ballot — with some even skipping that step and sending the actual ballots.

        The states are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin.”

        https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-changed-rules-voting-amid-coronavirus-pandemic/story?id=72309089

        So in order to just sue the 4 swing states, Texas was relying on fraud being the issue there and no where else. Paxton even included the “one in quadrillion” quote.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “But the assertions of fraud were key. It was to show the harm created by the “illegal” election law tweaks.”

          Not really. Ballots don’t have to be fraudulent to be illegal.

          Like

      1. For once I agree with you. He IS severely delusional and I doubt Bourbon would help. A lobotomy and a cork in his trap would be more appropriate. IMO of course….S

        Like

      1. No. Trump failed to overturn the election results, so the steal failed.

        Here is the saddest part of all. You have absolutely no proof that the election was a fraud and that the states did anything wrong.

        None.

        And the nation has patiently waited for the results from dozens of court filings which proved there was no fraud or illegalities through the system we all agreed to abide by as Americans.

        And yet you parrot Trump like an obedient foot soldier helping to pass on lies, lies and more lies.

        Shameful in any sense of the word.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The court actions proved no such thing. They were not decided on merit, testimony was not even heard, they were decided on technical issues and on the reluctance of the court to take on a decision that lacked any workable remedy.

          Once those ballots were separated from the envelopes they came in, the election was unsalvagable.

          Like

          1. Judges looked at the evidence offered and did make decisions that there was no evidence worthy of consideration in a trial.

            Dozens of them. many Republicans and even some Trump appointed. How many do you need?

            Yes, ballots have to be separated from the envelopes so the secrecy of the ballot is maintained. This was done after accepted norms of checking the signatures. You want names and party so you can persecute them later for not being your party?

            Did they not call you personally for approval?

            I thought so.

            Your lies are just supporting Trump’s lies, simple as that.

            “I don’t have proof that men landed on the moon in 1969, because I wasn’t there,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Friday night when asked for proof that there was widespread voter fraud. He added that he won’t accept the results until Jan. 20, when Biden’s hand is on the Bible.”

            WaPo 12/12/20

            Is that who you are? Because you personally did not vet every vote, they are fraudulent? Or you did not sit with the judges?

            Ever been to the Antarctic? If not, how do you know there are penguins there?

            Every remedy, with great patience I might add, has been tried under a system YOU voted in and agreed to live with. That not good enough for you?

            You wanted originalists and textualists as a majority on the Court. You got them, and it is still not good enough.

            Sorry, but that is why Trump is a traitor. He is convincing honest citizens like yourself that he is aggrieved and that he wants to steal the election because he deserves it.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “They were not decided on merit, testimony was not even heard, they were decided on technical issues and on the reluctance of the court to take on a decision that lacked any workable remedy.”

            A Trump appointed federal judge in WI says otherwise.

            https://theweek.com/speedreads/955015/judge-appointed-by-trump-heard-case-overturn-bidens-win-wholly-rejected-merits

            Most notably ” Despite having the opportunity of a hearing before a Trump appointee who was willing to give the campaign ample opportunity to prove its case, the campaign said, ‘Never mind.'” And “this is not the first time the campaign ducked an opportunity to prove its claims of a stolen election in court,” he adds. In Wisconsin, as in Pennsylvania and Michigan, “every time a court offers him an opportunity to establish by proof what he is promoting by Twitter, Team Trump folds.” “

            Like

  2. Given the plain language of Article III, Section 2, I don’t understand how the majority denied standing to Texas and its co-plaintiffs. I suppose the majority believes that plaintiffs were not entitled to the specific relief they sought, but the counter argument would be that the Court controls the remedy. In other words, the relief sought doesn’t impact the separate question of standing.

    Had plaintiffs argued the Article IV claim under the Guarantee Clause (as presented in one of the amicus briefs) I wonder if the decision might have been different.

    Like

        1. Not really. Alito and Thomas merely said that they would allow the filing, but denied the case.

          “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.”

          Like answering the door to a salesman, but not buying what he is selling.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “Alito and Thomas merely said that they would allow the filing, but denied the case.”

            Had the filing been allowed, the case would not have been “denied.” The essence of the dissent was to hear the case on the merits without enjoining the election until it were resolved.

            Like

          2. 7-2, if that is your contention, is still a monumental loss on a 6-3 conservative court, especially since none of the hard line Trump ideologues were part of the 7.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. “I concede the election. It was hard fought, but as a nation we decided on a different administration going forward. I urge my supporters to accept the results. My court battles have determined it was a fair election. I am going to support the transition with all my best efforts. We have a deadly pandemic and a looming economic crisis that will challenge the new president and I pledge to provide all the help I can.

      Thank you to all those who had faith in me. And should I chose to run in 2024, I will call upon you to make that run successful again.”

      Now, I ask anyone to tell me that such a statement by Trump would not help heal the partisan divide, our handling of the economy and COVID.

      I think it would. Certainly much more so than “send me a list” so he can screw the RINO’s.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Winners don’t concede.

          The sad part is that for Trump fans, dozens of suits in every court available, including SCOTUS, has denied the evidence of fraud or illegalities.

          Now if that is not acceptable to Trump fans, that we have either mass denial or mass ignorance.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. “The same statement by Biden works for me.”

          Yes, and that is pretty close to what he would have said IF he had lost the election. A big difference is that Biden would not have initiated dozens of feckless lawsuits and spent weeks claiming victory if he had lost the vote.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. RE: “The sad part is that for Trump fans, dozens of suits in every court available, including SCOTUS, has denied the evidence of fraud or illegalities.”

          SCOTUS chose not to try the case on the merits. Other courts did the same one way or another. As a result, the evidence remains unresolved as a legal matter.

          The sad part is that for Biden fans, the taint of this election will never be removed.

          Like

          1. “As a result, the evidence remains unresolved as a legal matter.”

            Uh, there is no evidence to support Trump’s seditious claims.

            Your sentence makes as much sense as saying . . . “Election fraud by Bigfoot remains unresolved as a legal matter.”

            And, by the way, the taint on the honor of this nation WILL be removed at High Noon on January 20, 2021.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “SCOTUS chose not to try the case on the merits. Other courts did the same one way or another.”

            That is because there were no “merits” to decide. The affidavits were not credible or petty complaints about Democrats looking at them in a funny way.

            The point is simple: Trump say it was fraud, and his fans jump for joy. The courts say no, and the ignorance holds. That is a cult leader, not a president.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. So, what you are NOW saying is in essence that Trump’s lawyers are incompetents since they failed to identify the winning argument and to bring the case to court with people whose standing could not be an issue?

      That is one theory. Mine is different. It is that the case was total bullshit from the beginning, that Trump’s lawyers knew they never had a chance, and that they kept plugging away at $20,000 a day anyway. Which, after all is chump change since Dear Leader has raised more than $200 million from his hapless followers on this quest to overturn the election.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That is the oh so obvious reason for this seditious charade.

        It has been argued that rich men don’t do this except to keep score.

        Well, Trump is all about score.

        “Score” as in running up the score and settling the score.

        300,000 deaths…now there is a score he should be addressing daily.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “So, what you are NOW saying is in essence that Trump’s lawyers are incompetents since they failed to identify the winning argument and to bring the case to court with people whose standing could not be an issue?”

        Help yourself to whatever fantasies you wish to indulge. I said no such thing.

        Like

          1. YOU are not a particularly competent lawyer and yet YOU see legal avenues that would have been more successful. If you are unable to understand that your statements imply that Trump’s lawyers are less competent than YOU, then I cannot help you further. But let me assure you, that I have accurately stated what you have implied when you attribute the failure to their missing better approaches.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “I have accurately stated what you have implied when you attribute the failure to their missing better approaches.”

            The problem is you are imagining what I implied. Hence, fantasies. But feel free to keep arguing with yourself.

            Like

        1. Competent lawyers would have presented actual, factual, provable evidence to the courts. Rudy, Cracken-Lady and the rest did not. The actual competent lawyers LEFT the case because there was no there there.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Competent lawyers would have presented actual, factual, provable evidence to the courts.”

            In the instant ruling, they did. SCOTUS chose not to review it.

            Like

          2. Uh, nit really.

            All of the affadavits, statements and videos have been proven to be unsubstantiated or debunked. You can keep saying there is evidence, but NONE of it is credible enough for any court to have considered it on its face.

            Trump lost 99% of the cases and 100% of the general election. Get over it.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s