The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge

[Victoria33]

Of course they can sue each other. Are you saying a state is immune from suits due to sovereignty?  If you are, then that is flat wrong.

@IsailedawayfromFR

See my post 23.

[Right_in_Virginia]

but these counties followed these words instead of the laws passed by the legislature.  That is illegal.

And the court must decide if the votes cast and counted under this illegality are also illegal. @Victoria33

If they are, the court will most likely send it to the legislatures of the defendant states for remedy.


 

[Elderberry]

@Cyber Liberty
@Jazzhead

Yes, I know state boundaries and water/other natural resources between the states can be argued at the Supreme Court as that is our highest court. 

This case pursuit is different - it is about words and the actions those words cause.  In this case, words written and passed by a state legislature as an election law must be followed in an election.  Words written by a county individual or individuals, right before or after voting starts, are just that - words - not laws - but these counties followed these words instead of the laws passed by the legislature.  That is illegal.

I don't see how this pursuit is any different than many other state to state suits. Suits against words and actions. What else is there to sue about?

[Fishrrman]

The Supreme Court set 3pm today for the defendant states (GA, PA, MI, WI) to respond to Texas' complaint.

Have any done so?

[skeeter]

The Supreme Court set 3pm today for the defendant states (GA, PA, MI, WI) to respond to Texas' complaint.

Have any done so?

I saw PA's and MI's. They were as expected.

IMO the SCOTUS will hear the case.

[Polly Ticks]

The Supreme Court set 3pm today for the defendant states (GA, PA, MI, WI) to respond to Texas' complaint.

Have any done so?

Yes.  The docket number is 22O155 if you want to look it up on the SCOTUS website.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

[txradioguy]

Yes.  The docket number is 22O155 if you want to look it up on the SCOTUS website.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Did our AG finally get onboard with this?  As of yesterday they were expecting him to but nothing had happened.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR

See my post 23.

That's my post, I do believe.

[Polly Ticks]

Did our AG finally get onboard with this?  As of yesterday they were expecting him to but nothing had happened.

@txradioguy
I haven't seen anything yet, but I'm still hopeful.

[Smokin Joe]

That and this!

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html

That does not say a damned word about Governors, or Secretary of States! And you are definitely wrong! Where else do you imagine states can go to get the Constitution enforced?

It is not a question of where else. The SCOTUS is the Court of primary jurisdiction. It is the ONLY place, Constitutionally, for such a challenge to be made to such a violation of the Equal Protection Clause through the usurpation of the respective legislatures' powers in such a way as to materially affect the outcome of a nationwide Federal election, said outcome which affects all citizens of these United States.

Link to links to all filings in this case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

[Fishrrman]

Will the Court work on this over the weekend?
I'd consider that a good sign, as the Electoral College votes on Monday.

[rustynail]

It is finished.

[Cyber Liberty]

It is finished.

As is the Republic the Founders gave us.  We're officially lawless.

[Bigun]

[Cyber Liberty]

That hotlink doesn't work.

[rustynail]

As is the Republic the Founders gave us.  We're officially lawless.

We are in a tight spot...

[Cyber Liberty]

We are in a tight spot...

Too tight.  If the SCOTUS can't decide on this, they'll never find our way on the big things ever again.  Done.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@libertybele
@Jazzhead
ALL

Texas does not have the right to challenge another state's election.  States set their own laws/rules.

NOW, here is what this lawsuit is about, and the states cannot do what they did, but they did it anyway:
Some state officials, mainly the Secretary of State since elections in most states are run by the Secretary of State, Elections Division, changed their rules for mail ballots, just before the election happened.  They cannot do that - the law must be changed by the state legislature in order for it to be law.  If you remember, the rules for issuing mail ballots, the time to get the ballots in, the order not to check signatures, etc., all these things were done illegally.

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court.  Now, if the Supreme Court takes the case, then I am wrong; they can take any case they want.

You were right in the end.

[Jazzhead]

@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
@libertybele
@Jazzhead
ALL

Texas does not have the right to challenge another state's election.  States set their own laws/rules.

NOW, here is what this lawsuit is about, and the states cannot do what they did, but they did it anyway:
Some state officials, mainly the Secretary of State since elections in most states are run by the Secretary of State, Elections Division, changed their rules for mail ballots, just before the election happened.  They cannot do that - the law must be changed by the state legislature in order for it to be law.  If you remember, the rules for issuing mail ballots, the time to get the ballots in, the order not to check signatures, etc., all these things were done illegally.

Honestly, the Secretary of State, Elections Division, cannot change the rules/laws on their own.  But, the State of Texas, cannot sue those states.  I have no idea how this will turn out but I see no way Texas can take these states to The Supreme Court.  Now, if the Supreme Court takes the case, then I am wrong; they can take any case they want.

I believe you would have been right on the merits, @Victoria33 .   Too bad we'll never know,  because the SCOTUS chickened out and cited a lack of standing to avoid having to decide.   

That's fine in the ordinary course,  but when the issue involves a question presented in the wheelhouse of the SCOTUS' original jurisdiction - disputes between the states themselves -  a standing cop-out leaves a gap that can only be filled by warfare,  partisan or otherwise.   

When the SCOTUS refused to hear suit a week or so ago regarding the Pennsy changes to its election laws,  that's no big deal -  the litigants DID have a court that adjudicated their dispute.   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided,  and the SCOTUS let it stand.    The plaintiffs didn't like the decision,  but at least a court was there, willing and able to provide a forum for peaceful resolution. 

With the SCOTUS' original jurisdication,  citing a lack of standing means that Texas (and the other states that joined the suit)  have no avenue to a remedy at all.   Their dispute with their fellow sovereign states,  if the SCOTUS lacks standing,  cannot be heard by any court, anywhere.  No other court has jurisdiction.    And if a court is not available to address a dispute,  the only avenues left are warfare (perhaps of the political kind,  but more ominously of the violent kind), or secession.

This is not a healthy development, to say the least.   Indeed,  it legitimately provides grounds for Texas to secede from the Union - how can it remain when there is no legal forum for it to adjudicate its grievance???   

[txradioguy]

This is not a healthy development, to say the least.   Indeed,  it legitimately provides grounds for Texas to secede from the Union - how can it remain when there is no legal forum for it to adjudicate its grievance???

Not just Texas.  Any state really. 

[Jazzhead]

Not just Texas.  Any state really.

Correct.  If there is no peaceful avenue to adjudicate a grievance between sovereign states,  then there are legitimate grounds to dissolve the Union.   The SCOTUS should have taken the case and ruled on the merits.   The cop-out they performed instead opens a dangerous gap in the system of laws that bind us together.   It is one thing for the Court to conclude that Texas in fact has no remedy.   The SCOTUS has ruled that it has no forum.   That's shocking to me.   

[Lando Lincoln]

I believe you would have been right on the merits, @Victoria33 .   Too bad we'll never know,  because the SCOTUS chickened out and cited a lack of standing to avoid having to decide.   

That's fine in the ordinary course,  but when the issue involves a question presented in the wheelhouse of the SCOTUS' original jurisdiction - disputes between the states themselves -  a standing cop-out leaves a gap that can only be filled by warfare,  partisan or otherwise.   

When the SCOTUS refused to hear suit a week or so ago regarding the Pennsy changes to its election laws,  that's no big deal -  the litigants DID have a court that adjudicated their dispute.   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided,  and the SCOTUS let it stand.    The plaintiffs didn't like the decision,  but at least a court was there, willing and able to provide a forum for peaceful resolution. 

With the SCOTUS' original jurisdication,  citing a lack of standing means that Texas (and the other states that joined the suit)  have no avenue to a remedy at all.   Their dispute with their fellow sovereign states,  if the SCOTUS lacks standing,  cannot be heard by any court, anywhere.  No other court has jurisdiction.    And if a court is not available to address a dispute,  the only avenues left are warfare (perhaps of the political kind,  but more ominously of the violent kind), or secession.

This is not a healthy development, to say the least.   Indeed,  it legitimately provides grounds for Texas to secede from the Union - how can it remain when there is no legal forum for it to adjudicate its grievance???

Good post.  Stunning development with the Court. 

[HoustonSam]

Correct.  If there is no peaceful avenue to adjudicate a grievance between sovereign states,  then there are legitimate grounds to dissolve the Union.   The SCOTUS should have taken the case and ruled on the merits.   The cop-out they performed instead opens a dangerous gap in the system of laws that bind us together.   It is one thing for the Court to conclude that Texas in fact has no remedy.   The SCOTUS has ruled that it has no forum.   That's shocking to me.

That's a very insightful distinction @Jazzhead, many thanks.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Correct.  If there is no peaceful avenue to adjudicate a grievance between sovereign states,  then there are legitimate grounds to dissolve the Union.   The SCOTUS should have taken the case and ruled on the merits.   The cop-out they performed instead opens a dangerous gap in the system of laws that bind us together.   It is one thing for the Court to conclude that Texas in fact has no remedy.   The SCOTUS has ruled that it has no forum.   That's shocking to me.

Sorry but I disagree. Voting issues has always been a states issue, will always be a states issue. You want California or Illinois to dictate to texas how to vote?

Not only that but there's no right to vote in the Constitution.

To me this suit was dead on arrival.

[roamer_1]

Sorry but I disagree. Voting issues has always been a states issue, will always be a states issue. You want California or Illinois to dictate to texas how to vote?

Not only that but there's no right to vote in the Constitution.

To me this suit was dead on arrival.

That's probably right.
But then the question remains: Where/what is the remedy when states (respectively) fail to guard their elections? Who DOES have standing?