The Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court is huge

[Cyber Liberty]

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?

During the O'Bastard regime, the courts proved it's possible nobody has standing if the courts want to fob off their job. 

Every case about the forged Birth Certificate was thrown out for lack of standing. 

[Bigun]

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?

This whole 20th century, progressive era court contrived idea of "Standing" is an affront to our Constitution and system of Justice IMHO!  Does anyone remember how questions about the Constitutional Eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama were universally dealt with?  Why is no one even bothering to ask those same questions about Kamala Harris?

Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine?
An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006*

[roamer_1]

During the O'Bastard regime, the courts proved it's possible nobody has standing if the courts want to fob off their job. 

Every case about the forged Birth Certificate was thrown out for lack of standing.

Then the obvious course is to increase sovereign rights to states. If there s no remedy, then no state (nor the feds) can exercise remedy on anything. Hence a government within a government, a consortium of rebel states willing to assert rights collectively, and to initiate nullification...

IF the government we have is no longer interested in liberty, then we better get going on something that does.

[Cyber Liberty]

Then the obvious course is to increase sovereign rights to states. If there s no remedy, then no state (nor the feds) can exercise remedy on anything. Hence a government within a government, a consortium of rebel states willing to assert rights collectively, and to initiate nullification...

IF the government we have is no longer interested in liberty, then we better get going on something that does.

It will be interesting if the States developed enough courage to seize their sovereign rights, and if what remains of the National Government decides to forcefully deny it.

[roamer_1]

This whole 20th century, progressive era court contrived idea of "Standing" is an affront to our Constitution and system of Justice IMHO!  Does anyone remember how questions about the Constitutional Eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama were universally dealt with?  Why is no one even bothering to ask those same questions about Kamala Harris?

Did Liberal Justices Invent the Standing Doctrine?
An Empirical Study of the Evolution of Standing, 1921-2006*

Alright, but it is what it is. If the Congress is not jealous for its power, and allows the scotus to impose and to ignore, then what is there beyond butthurt? From whence cometh our help?

[roamer_1]

It will be interesting if the States developed enough courage to seize their sovereign rights, and if what remains of the National Government decides to forcefully deny it.

Most have long ago traded their sovereignty for a place at the udder.

[Cyber Liberty]

Most have long ago traded their sovereignty for a place at the udder.

A Mel Gibson line from The Patriot comes to mind:  How is it better to have 3,000 tyrants one mile away than it is to have one tyrant 3,000 miles away?

We have thousands of tyrants wanting that udder, and dragging the rest of us down to Hell with them.

[txradioguy]

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.

Not to me though.  After the way that Obama went after the Justices in front of the world during that State of The Union address...it sent a clear message to everyone that it was open season on the SCOTUS and they've been dragged through the mud ever since.

So with the Roberts court we now have the highest court that is now and will be in the future malleable to public opinion negative stories in the media and pulpit pounding threatening speeches by members of Congress.  They will make decisions based on fear instead of black letter law. They are more afraid of a negative article in a SCOTUS Blog in the NYT or a threat of court packing by the Progressives than they are strong enough to do what's right.

The branch that was purposely designed to be the weakest in terms of power...has now also become the most cowardly.

[Bigun]

SCOTUS just delivered the message that: 1. they are a political institution, not a judicial one, 2. they will pick cases based on the level of controversy rather than merit, and lastly, we plebes can just suck it up and get over it.

It also delivers, to me anyway, that our system is so deeply corrupted and broken that there is no fixing it. It is rotten from head to toe and at this point, its continued existence is for the purpose of serving and enriching those who direct it. And, those ain't us.

And, I never would have thought I would get to this point in my thinking, but here I am.

[Jazzhead]

Not to me though.  After the way that Obama went after the Justices in front of the world during that State of The Union address...it sent a clear message to everyone that it was open season on the SCOTUS and they've been dragged through the mud ever since.

So with the Roberts court we now have the highest court that is now and will be in the future malleable to public opinion negative stories in the media and pulpit pounding threatening speeches by members of Congress.  They will make decisions based on fear instead of black letter law. They are more afraid of a negative article in a SCOTUS Blog in the NYT or a threat of court packing by the Progressives than they are strong enough to do what's right.

The branch that was purposely designed to be the weakest in terms of power...has now also become the most cowardly.

I agree that the SCOTUS has been the target of obvious intimidation from political actors.  This refusal to provide the sovereign State of Texas with its day in court- regardless of how they may have ruled on the merits - is a body blow to the Constitution's carefully constructed protections, and to the rule of law..   The SCOTUS has given in to the mob,  and the cost of that surrender will reverberate in ways we can scarcely begin to imagine. 

[txradioguy]

I agree that the SCOTUS has been the target of obvious intimidation from political actors.  This refusal to provide the sovereign State of Texas with its day in court- regardless of how they may have ruled on the merits - is a body blow to the Constitution's carefully constructed protections, and to the rule of law..   The SCOTUS has given in to the mob,  and the cost of that surrender will reverberate in ways we can scarcely begin to imagine.

I know one thing for certain...I don't want to ever hear about having a Conservative SCOTUS ever again.  All three of Trump's picks for the bench sided with the Progressive Liberals to screw the country.

[Bigun]

I agree that the SCOTUS has been the target of obvious intimidation from political actors.  This refusal to provide the sovereign State of Texas with its day in court- regardless of how they may have ruled on the merits - is a body blow to the Constitution's carefully constructed protections, and to the rule of law..   The SCOTUS has given in to the mob,  and the cost of that surrender will reverberate in ways we can scarcely begin to imagine.

Hallelujah!!!

@Jazzhead just said something I entirely agree with!  Hard to believe but a fact never-the-less.

And we are not the only ones!

[Right_in_Virginia]

I agree that the SCOTUS has been the target of obvious intimidation from political actors.  This refusal to provide the sovereign State of Texas with its day in court- regardless of how they may have ruled on the merits - is a body blow to the Constitution's carefully constructed protections, and to the rule of law..   The SCOTUS has given in to the mob,  and the cost of that surrender will reverberate in ways we can scarcely begin to imagine.

 

Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law

FYI: the entire doctrine of "standing" was invented by courts this last century as a way to play preferential Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of cases they don't want responsibility for.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dfbd/14305d0a07a25975a0960c3f297eddd42367.pdf


10:46 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337604758576615425

[Smokin Joe]

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.

This wasn't a question of one state telling another how to vote, but that they must follow their own rules made by their legislature (as required in the US Constitution) to do so. That was not done, with those rules altered by other entities besides the State legislatures in the instances of the defendant States.

If Texas is Constitutionally required to follow it's own Legislature's rules for voting, (Which it was), then the other States should be constrained to voting rules made by their respective legislatures.

Now, Texas can make any rule it wants, any way it wants, for a Federal election, and the precedent is established that no other State can say squat. They have no standing.

There is no Right to breathe in the Constitution, either.
The Constitution is not there to grant Rights, but to protect them. 

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This wasn't a question of one state telling another how to vote, but that they must follow their own rules made by their legislature (as required in the US Constitution) to do so. That was not done, with those rules altered by other entities besides the State legislatures in the instances of the defendant States.

If Texas is Constitutionally required to follow it's own Legislature's rules for voting, (Which it was), then the other States should be constrained to voting rules made by their respective legislatures.

Now, Texas can make any rule it wants, any way it wants, for a Federal election, and the precedent is established that no other State can say squat. They have no standing.

There is no Right to breathe in the Constitution, either.
The Constitution is not there to grant Rights, but to protect them. 

Ninth Amendment:

Agreed.

One must obey the Constitution or there is a penalty.

One penalty is because certain states chose to not obey it, trust in the process is eroded to the detriment of our country.

And the other penalty is the Constitution has been rendered ineffective.  And any state now has free reign to conduct its own affairs regardless of whether it adheres to that Constitution as no other state has 'standing'.

[Smokin Joe]

Agreed.

One must obey the Constitution or there is a penalty.

One penalty is because certain states chose to not obey it, trust in the process is eroded to the detriment of our country.

And the other penalty is the Constitution has been rendered ineffective.  And any state now has free reign to conduct its own affairs regardless of whether it adheres to that Constitution as no other state has 'standing'.

Interesting precedent, really. Environmental laws, the whole interstate commerce clause could bite the dust over that.

[jmyrlefuller]

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?

That would require Congressional intervention. e.g., the Voting Rights Act of 1965.