The Texas v. Pennsylvania Denial of Jurisdiction

[Elderberry]

The Post & Email by Joseph DeMaio 12/13/2020

WHO WILL EXERCISE "DISCERNMENT?"

OK, faithful P&E readers, you and a slew of other Americans may be asking themselves: what is going on in the wake of the Supreme Court’s declination to accept jurisdiction over the Texas v. Pennsylvania original action seeking leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” in the Court?

Unless you have been living in a cave for the last ten days, you know that Texas submitted to the Court a motion for leave to file, under the Court’s original jurisdiction under the Constitution, a “Bill of Complaint” against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin.  The docketed documents can be found here.

The long and short of the proposed bill of complaint was that, because the named state defendants had altered through non-legislative acts – i.e., through the actions of executive branch and judicial branch, but not legislative branch personnel – their state statutory laws and/or procedures governing how presidential elections were to be held, those actions altered how presidential electors under the federal Constitution were to be selected and thus infringed on the rights of other states and their citizen voters to have such elections conducted in a lawful and constitutional manner.  The argument was that the rogue states’ actions diluted and/or disenfranchised voters of other states where their election laws were observed. A majority of the Court determined to reject assumption of jurisdiction over the case because Texas purportedly lacked “standing” to bring the action.

The curious aspect of the Supreme Court’s refusal to accept jurisdiction lies in the fact that only Justices Alito and Thomas – two of the Court’s staunchest conservatives – disagreed with the other members of the Court. They argued that Texas did, in fact, possess “standing” before the Court because, in their view, the Court lacked “discretion” to refuse to accept jurisdiction under Art. 3, § 2 of the Constitution.  Stated otherwise, they believed that, because federal law and the Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court over “controversies between two or more states,” that investiture alone bestowed “standing” in Texas to maintain the action.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/12/13/the-texas-v-pennsylvania-denial-of-jurisdiction/

[HoustonSam]

That a literate and (arguably) free people have to speculate on the court's reasoning is intolerable to ordered liberty.  We might as well cast lots, or consult tea leaves and animal entrails.

[Bigun]

That a literate and (arguably) free people have to speculate on the court's reasoning is intolerable to ordered liberty.  We might as well cast lots, or consult tea leaves and animal entrails.

Well said @HoustonSam well said indeed!

[Hoodat]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

T. Jefferson