5 ms·

Pennsylvania Election Officially Contested

29 points by heshiebee 6y ago

99_00 6y ago
I look forward to this being going to an arena where both sides have to follow the same rules and have equal opportunity to state their case. I heard that Ted Cruz say he would argue this. If he does, I feel sorry for whoever is across from him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0squnOeXqLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0squnOeXqLU
- microtherion 6y ago
  I would not get my hopes up if I were you. This is not even a lawsuit. This is a motion asking for permission to file a lawsuit, and it's highly unlikely to get approved. Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in a different case just denied standing to Pennsylvania Republicans to challenge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of Pennsylvania election law. This case is TEXAS Republicans asking for standing to challenge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of Pennsylvania election law. You might see the problem there...
  - tekknik 6y ago
    The last case, if memory serves, was dismissed was because the plaintiff was not directly damaged. IANAL but this is not the same.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      PA Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to bring the complaint up in a timely manner (i.e., before the election). SCOTUS didn't explain why it decided not to hear the case, but I assume because they found nothing wrong with PA Supreme Court's decision.
      - microtherion 6y ago
        > the plaintiff failed to bring the complaint up in a timely manner (i.e., before the election) The present lawsuit addresses this argument as follows: > Prior to the election, there was no reason to know who would win the vote in any given State. Points for honesty, but I don't think it helps them to say this part out loud.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        I don't think it is honest, though. I believe the real reason why it's only being filed now is that all the other challenges have failed, and they didn't think they'd need to resort to a judicial Hail Mary until everything else had failed.
        99_00 6y ago
        Can you file suit if you don't suffer damage?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        Broadly speaking, you need to demonstrate actual harm to bring a suit. Theoretical harm isn't sufficient, and the US Constitution explicitly prohibits bringing non-live cases before SCOTUS (Case or Controversies clause).
        tekknik 6y ago
        So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? With just the new laws in place, nobody can suffer damage until they actually suffer damage no? Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        > Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry? That is exactly the kind of "theoretical" harm that is routinely slapped down by courts as unactionable. In general, harm must be direct and specific, not indirect or generalized. Biden could move to push for legislation to combat climate change that harms the oil industry, but until that legislation is enacted, no harm has been suffered, and no suit could be brought to remedy that harm until that point, since it is only theoretical and speculative until then. > So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? No. There are a couple of mechanisms that will let you challenge election procedures before an election. I'm shaky on the actual legal justification behind it, but my recollection is that it is based on the idea that a voter experiences harm when the election procedure denies them the right to vote, even if an election has not actually been conducted that would deny them the vote. I should point out that there was an awful lot of election procedure litigation prior to the election, with heavy media coverage, which was mostly not shot down due to lack of standing or lack of controversy, so it is not reasonable to be surprised that this pathway exists.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Didn't trump already sue and then have to withdraw the case? If so, what is this? Why does it say "Texas vs", is texas suing? Edit: Yes, it is Texas, the state. They're also suing 3 other states in the same complaint. And they've made a spelling/grammar mistake and misused i.e. And they seem very light on detail. Is this serious? They also allege other states did the exact same things they did (preferential treatment of areas voting the way the state government leans) which is hypocritical. I thought texas was classier than that. Sorry, I find this whole process baffling to be honest...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
everybodyknows 6y ago
>Texas, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania, et al. The "et al" being Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan.
everybodyknows 6y ago
Contest over: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/supreme-court-republican-challenge-pennsylvania-vote.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/supreme-court-republic... https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7...
- tekknik 6y ago
  This is not the same case.
stakkur 6y ago
It's all done for appearances and fundraising. Most of the machinations you're seeing lately by Republicans are; there's no sincere attempt to change the election, or belief that it can be changed.
- h_spacer 6y ago
  It's all part of the 2024 election campaign. I will be shocked if Trump doesn't run again. God help the Democrats if Biden dies during his first term. It will be a blood bath after how close this election was despite everything that had gone wrong this year for Trump.
  - ourmandave 6y ago
    If Trump runs in 2024 and wins by 8M votes I wonder how Republicans will take it when his opponent disputes the results using the exact same tactics he's using now? If I were the Dems I'd have Giuliani on retainer and ready to go.
    - h_spacer 6y ago
      Being a republican doesn't make you part of some gestalt consciousness. I imagine the reactions will be the same as those of democrats I've seen so far: everything from bemused indifference to posting about a coup every day on social media.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > If Trump runs in 2024 and wins by 8M votes I wonder how Republicans will take it when his opponent disputes the results using the exact same tactics he's using now? To quote Don Draper from Mad Men (s02e05): "[The dispute/non-concession] never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened."
  - rektide 6y ago
    > I will be shocked if Trump doesn't run again. I would be pretty shocked if Trump ran. But I'd be more shocked if he didn't spend the next 4 years mouthing off & sewing discontent & pissing about as though he were running. Making a big stink, and pulling in millions of millions of dollars.
conroy 6y ago
Flagged for an editorialized headline. Can the title be changed to "Texas, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania, et al."?
- remram 6y ago
  The page not being an article, its title is particularly uninformative as to the contents. This would be a terrible title for the submission.
erichocean 6y ago
I'm not convinced any court, anywhere, will hear any case regarding the 2020 election—even if it would have been willing to do so in past elections, or in the future, and even if a judge personally believe's the case has merit. Certainly that's been the case so far. To do so in 2020 is to legitimize Trump's assault on the country, and I just don't see the courts doing that. It's better to just dismiss every case regardless of the merits. Republican voters aren't going to do anything about the election result once Biden has been inaugurated in January.
- _red 6y ago
  >It's best to just dismiss every case regardless of the merits. That sounds like someone thats pretty scared and knows they are guilty. Sad.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Opinions are irrelevant to facts and evidence.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Trust the plan.
- opinion-is-bad 6y ago
  The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear this case.
  - awnird 6y ago
    Docketed means the paperwork was filed correctly. It does not mean the court will hear the case.
- awnird 6y ago
  The courts have been hearing cases. Lots of them! Trump is currently 1-51 in post election cases.
_red 6y ago
Interesting that the Harvard statistician they used as an expert witness says: "the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion." This seems to indicate fraud.
- jetrink 6y ago
  "[L]ess than one in a quadrillion" given certain assumptions which likely don't include the high volume of mail-in votes due to this election taking place during a pandemic. This election is not like others and if you use models based on past elections to draw naive conclusions, you're going to get garbage results.
  - _red 6y ago
    Mail-in ballots with no return address, driven across state lines from NY to PA in trucks, with unverified signatures on forms pre-printed in China. Hopefully you are not in charge of IT security?
    - microtherion 6y ago
      ... according to allegations by people who are also convinced that this is all following a master plan conceived by Hugo Chavez (presumably before he died in 2013).
  - tekknik 6y ago
    Isn’t this what every pollster did?
- throw-away_42 6y ago
  Only if you're clueless about elections and probability.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Not only does it not indicate fraud, but it was the expected outcome, because Trump convinced Republicans that covid wasn't real and mail-in voting was bad. So Republicans mainly showed up at the polls while lots of Democrats mailed in their ballots, many of which were counted after election day. And why were they counted after election day? In some of the swing states, including Pennsylvania, it was because Republican legislatures outlawed counting them as they came in.
molyss 6y ago
What stops any heavily democratic state file a similar lawsuit against Texas and a few other "swing states" that voted republican ? (I'm putting swing states in quotes because I think the meaning of the words changes depending on who you ask.) It seems to me that at least 2 points raised in the lawsuit, while they might be technically valid, were also used by various local governments in Texas (non-legislative bodies amending election laws, favoring the party of the local government's party). The 3rd point could easily be argued the other way around, given the global lack of evidence for election mishandling on all states. The real problem here is that attorneys don't get punished for bringing frivolous lawsuits, even though they have a significant cost to society. I think that's a massive issue with the US judiciary system. In this case, qualified immunity would probably protect the AG of Texas from being personally liable, which is another issue with the current system IMO.
- paxys 6y ago
  Nothing. Anyone can file a suit for any reason. The Supreme Court is unlikely to hear this case, or any other one related to supposed election fraud, considering there hasn't been any supporting material submitted to justify it. There is a reason Republican Congressmen are congratulating Biden in private and then Tweeting about stolen elections.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Trump lost! What more proof do you need? /s
  - loopz 6y ago
    They are two-faced liars?
    - paxys 6y ago
      They want to get reelected.
      - loopz 6y ago
GaltMidas 6y ago
Does anyone know if "docketed" means that SCOTUS granted Certiorari?
- dvt 6y ago
  It does not[1]. Doesn't really matter though, as there's no cert to be granted here: State v. State can only be adjudicated in SCOTUS. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/glossary-of-legal-terms https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/g...
- Kina 6y ago
  The Court does not grant cert for this. Disputes between states are one of the few instances where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and thus, it is the trial court.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Docketed means that SCOTUS will consider the petition. It is extremely unusual that SCOTUS does not docket a case; you basically have to be a vexatious litigant to reach that stage. Considering a petition is not even close to a guarantee of certiorari. There are several thousand petitions filed a year, and SCOTUS will hear about 70-ish cases a year.
iaw 6y ago
The title is pretty misleading with "officially" in there. It should probably be the title of the case right?
dvt 6y ago
Pretty clever move by the GOP lawyers, making it an interstate issue (which, by definition, only SCOTUS can handle). Obviously SCOTUS can see through this, but it's a neat little legal strategy, regardless. I guess my only question would be if Texas really has standing here.
- metiscus 6y ago
  I am not a lawyer but I think the most likely result of this suit is for SCOTUS to deny it on the grounds of standing. You could see the court use something similar to Alabama v Arizona or possibly Mass. v Missouri. If they deny on standing, they can remove themselves from the spotlight while not having to decide on the merits which are extremely radioactive given that the future of the court is intertwined (albeit indirectly) in the outcome of any merits finding.
- deathanatos 6y ago
  An interstate issue. "Intra-" means "within", "inter-" means between. (The "Internet" is between networks; the "interstate" highways are between states; your LAN is the "intranet" though I think that term has become somewhat archaic.)
  - dvt 6y ago
    Whoops fixed :)
imoverclocked 6y ago
“... The American Experiment will founder.” I think they meant “flounder” but it’s only words. I’m always amazed when I read official documents that will likely live long beyond my lifetime which contain silly typos or obviously flawed reasoning.
- DennisP 6y ago
  I think they meant "founder," as in the intransigent verb: "to become disabled, to give way, to become submerged, to come to grief." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder
  - imoverclocked 6y ago
    til: founder as a verb. Thanks for that!
    - DennisP 6y ago
      You're welcome and, er, I meant "intransitive," not "intransigent," which is a whole different thing :)
ada1981 6y ago
Why is this flagged? This is actual news from the us gov. Trolls...
- conroy 6y ago
  The title is heavily editorialized. From the guidelines: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
throw0101a 6y ago
An observation about SCOTUS (not) taking state-versus-state cases: > 5. One of the factors the Justices look to is whether the issues in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. Thus, the Court usually denies leave unless it's a uniquely state-state dispute (again, like borders/water). > 6. Among lots of other things, that's almost certainly fatal to this crazy new Texas suit. As we've seen, these claims are already being brought in private suits in each of those states. Texas offers no explanation for why the issues can't be (and aren't being) addressed there. > 7. And it's not for nothing that the Justices don't like "original" cases, partly because they don't come with a well-developed record and set of opinions from lower courts. > Indeed, the "original" docket has shrunk to an average of <1 argued case per Term in recent years. > 8. The other reason they don't like these cases is because they're worried about opening the floodgates. If Texas can sue these states over how they conduct their elections, what's to stop Vermont from suing Texas over how it regulates the oil industry, or other permutations. * https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329907400425488 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329907400425488 Another case against PA was dismissed today: * https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-bid-to-overturn-bidens-win-in-pennsylvania-443751 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejec...
jcranmer 6y ago
Anyone who thinks that Texas has a shot of winning is either high or knows nothing of law. The basis of the case is that PA, GA, WI, and MI erred in enacting unconstitutional election measures, and therefore their election results should be annulled. And this must fail for several reasons. First, Texas doesn't have standing to sue. Texas isn't injured by Pennsylvania's laws. Texas argues its standing on the basis of--wait for it--it makes its electoral votes meaningless. However, the electoral college has a fixed number of votes, so Texas can't even make a "vote dilution" basis for its votes, which is how the usual basis for standing. Therefore, the manner of which any other state chooses its votes literally has no effect on Texas's vote, although this would theoretically change if Texas adopted the National Popular Vote Compact. Second, jurisdiction. These are challenges of other states' laws, other states' practices, and sometimes against other states' constitutions (the claim against PA in particular for the latter). The natural forum for this would obviously be the relevant state courts, although states can't sue each other in state courts usually--which brings back to standing, as Texas not having the ability to sue for these claims strongly suggests that Texas doesn't have standing in the first place. Third, these claims have already been litigated, and already lost, and sometimes those losses have been repeatedly reaffirmed. That horse is well and truly dead, so stop beating it. Fourth, election procedure claims that arise after the election are strongly disfavored. You usually have to justify why you couldn't bring the claim before the election, and waiting a full month after the election to bring the case does not look good (of course, see point #3 for why Texas brought the case). Fifth, for SCOTUS original jurisdiction claims specifically, SCOTUS really doesn't like original jurisdiction. So states really need to show why they couldn't bring the claim up in other forums. Such as objecting to electors in the House, which is how the Constitution explains it is supposed to be done. (Of course, there is a law that says that votes certified by a specific date will not be questioned by the House). Finally, relief. It's established in SCOTUS precedent that, even in election procedure claims arising after the election, the votes that are validly cast under the procedure are still to be counted. Asking the state legislatures to select their electoral slates as relief is not only literally unprecedented, but it is the exact opposite of what precedent specifies for relief. This is the stupidest of the election cases I've seen so far, and I thought the legislator arguing that he couldn't reasonably be expected to know the law was pretty bad.
- 6y ago

29 points by heshiebee 6y ago

I look forward to this being going to an arena where both sides have to follow the same rules and have equal opportunity to state their case. I heard that Ted Cruz say he would argue this. If he does, I feel sorry for whoever is across from him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0squnOeXqLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0squnOeXqLU

microtherion 6y ago
I would not get my hopes up if I were you. This is not even a lawsuit. This is a motion asking for permission to file a lawsuit, and it's highly unlikely to get approved. Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in a different case just denied standing to Pennsylvania Republicans to challenge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of Pennsylvania election law. This case is TEXAS Republicans asking for standing to challenge the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of Pennsylvania election law. You might see the problem there...
- tekknik 6y ago
  The last case, if memory serves, was dismissed was because the plaintiff was not directly damaged. IANAL but this is not the same.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    PA Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to bring the complaint up in a timely manner (i.e., before the election). SCOTUS didn't explain why it decided not to hear the case, but I assume because they found nothing wrong with PA Supreme Court's decision.
    - microtherion 6y ago
      > the plaintiff failed to bring the complaint up in a timely manner (i.e., before the election) The present lawsuit addresses this argument as follows: > Prior to the election, there was no reason to know who would win the vote in any given State. Points for honesty, but I don't think it helps them to say this part out loud.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        I don't think it is honest, though. I believe the real reason why it's only being filed now is that all the other challenges have failed, and they didn't think they'd need to resort to a judicial Hail Mary until everything else had failed.
      - 99_00 6y ago
        Can you file suit if you don't suffer damage?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        Broadly speaking, you need to demonstrate actual harm to bring a suit. Theoretical harm isn't sufficient, and the US Constitution explicitly prohibits bringing non-live cases before SCOTUS (Case or Controversies clause).
        tekknik 6y ago
        So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? With just the new laws in place, nobody can suffer damage until they actually suffer damage no? Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry?
        jcranmer 6y ago
        > Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry? That is exactly the kind of "theoretical" harm that is routinely slapped down by courts as unactionable. In general, harm must be direct and specific, not indirect or generalized. Biden could move to push for legislation to combat climate change that harms the oil industry, but until that legislation is enacted, no harm has been suffered, and no suit could be brought to remedy that harm until that point, since it is only theoretical and speculative until then. > So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? No. There are a couple of mechanisms that will let you challenge election procedures before an election. I'm shaky on the actual legal justification behind it, but my recollection is that it is based on the idea that a voter experiences harm when the election procedure denies them the right to vote, even if an election has not actually been conducted that would deny them the vote. I should point out that there was an awful lot of election procedure litigation prior to the election, with heavy media coverage, which was mostly not shot down due to lack of standing or lack of controversy, so it is not reasonable to be surprised that this pathway exists.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Didn't trump already sue and then have to withdraw the case? If so, what is this? Why does it say "Texas vs", is texas suing? Edit: Yes, it is Texas, the state. They're also suing 3 other states in the same complaint. And they've made a spelling/grammar mistake and misused i.e. And they seem very light on detail. Is this serious? They also allege other states did the exact same things they did (preferential treatment of areas voting the way the state government leans) which is hypocritical. I thought texas was classier than that. Sorry, I find this whole process baffling to be honest...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

everybodyknows 6y ago

>Texas, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania, et al. The "et al" being Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan.

everybodyknows 6y ago

Contest over: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/supreme-court-republican-challenge-pennsylvania-vote.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/us/supreme-court-republic... https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7...

tekknik 6y ago
This is not the same case.

stakkur 6y ago

It's all done for appearances and fundraising. Most of the machinations you're seeing lately by Republicans are; there's no sincere attempt to change the election, or belief that it can be changed.

h_spacer 6y ago
It's all part of the 2024 election campaign. I will be shocked if Trump doesn't run again. God help the Democrats if Biden dies during his first term. It will be a blood bath after how close this election was despite everything that had gone wrong this year for Trump.
- ourmandave 6y ago
  If Trump runs in 2024 and wins by 8M votes I wonder how Republicans will take it when his opponent disputes the results using the exact same tactics he's using now? If I were the Dems I'd have Giuliani on retainer and ready to go.
  - h_spacer 6y ago
    Being a republican doesn't make you part of some gestalt consciousness. I imagine the reactions will be the same as those of democrats I've seen so far: everything from bemused indifference to posting about a coup every day on social media.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > If Trump runs in 2024 and wins by 8M votes I wonder how Republicans will take it when his opponent disputes the results using the exact same tactics he's using now? To quote Don Draper from Mad Men (s02e05): "[The dispute/non-concession] never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened."
- rektide 6y ago
  > I will be shocked if Trump doesn't run again. I would be pretty shocked if Trump ran. But I'd be more shocked if he didn't spend the next 4 years mouthing off & sewing discontent & pissing about as though he were running. Making a big stink, and pulling in millions of millions of dollars.

conroy 6y ago

Flagged for an editorialized headline. Can the title be changed to "Texas, Plaintiff v. Pennsylvania, et al."?

remram 6y ago
The page not being an article, its title is particularly uninformative as to the contents. This would be a terrible title for the submission.

erichocean 6y ago

I'm not convinced any court, anywhere, will hear any case regarding the 2020 election—even if it would have been willing to do so in past elections, or in the future, and even if a judge personally believe's the case has merit. Certainly that's been the case so far. To do so in 2020 is to legitimize Trump's assault on the country, and I just don't see the courts doing that. It's better to just dismiss every case regardless of the merits. Republican voters aren't going to do anything about the election result once Biden has been inaugurated in January.

_red 6y ago
>It's best to just dismiss every case regardless of the merits. That sounds like someone thats pretty scared and knows they are guilty. Sad.
- loopz 6y ago
  Opinions are irrelevant to facts and evidence.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Trust the plan.
opinion-is-bad 6y ago
The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear this case.
- awnird 6y ago
  Docketed means the paperwork was filed correctly. It does not mean the court will hear the case.
awnird 6y ago
The courts have been hearing cases. Lots of them! Trump is currently 1-51 in post election cases.

_red 6y ago

Interesting that the Harvard statistician they used as an expert witness says: "the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion." This seems to indicate fraud.

jetrink 6y ago
"[L]ess than one in a quadrillion" given certain assumptions which likely don't include the high volume of mail-in votes due to this election taking place during a pandemic. This election is not like others and if you use models based on past elections to draw naive conclusions, you're going to get garbage results.
- _red 6y ago
  Mail-in ballots with no return address, driven across state lines from NY to PA in trucks, with unverified signatures on forms pre-printed in China. Hopefully you are not in charge of IT security?
  - microtherion 6y ago
    ... according to allegations by people who are also convinced that this is all following a master plan conceived by Hugo Chavez (presumably before he died in 2013).
- tekknik 6y ago
  Isn’t this what every pollster did?
throw-away_42 6y ago
Only if you're clueless about elections and probability.
DennisP 6y ago
Not only does it not indicate fraud, but it was the expected outcome, because Trump convinced Republicans that covid wasn't real and mail-in voting was bad. So Republicans mainly showed up at the polls while lots of Democrats mailed in their ballots, many of which were counted after election day. And why were they counted after election day? In some of the swing states, including Pennsylvania, it was because Republican legislatures outlawed counting them as they came in.

molyss 6y ago

What stops any heavily democratic state file a similar lawsuit against Texas and a few other "swing states" that voted republican ? (I'm putting swing states in quotes because I think the meaning of the words changes depending on who you ask.) It seems to me that at least 2 points raised in the lawsuit, while they might be technically valid, were also used by various local governments in Texas (non-legislative bodies amending election laws, favoring the party of the local government's party). The 3rd point could easily be argued the other way around, given the global lack of evidence for election mishandling on all states. The real problem here is that attorneys don't get punished for bringing frivolous lawsuits, even though they have a significant cost to society. I think that's a massive issue with the US judiciary system. In this case, qualified immunity would probably protect the AG of Texas from being personally liable, which is another issue with the current system IMO.

paxys 6y ago
Nothing. Anyone can file a suit for any reason. The Supreme Court is unlikely to hear this case, or any other one related to supposed election fraud, considering there hasn't been any supporting material submitted to justify it. There is a reason Republican Congressmen are congratulating Biden in private and then Tweeting about stolen elections.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Trump lost! What more proof do you need? /s
- loopz 6y ago
  They are two-faced liars?
  - paxys 6y ago
    They want to get reelected.
    - loopz 6y ago

GaltMidas 6y ago

Does anyone know if "docketed" means that SCOTUS granted Certiorari?

dvt 6y ago
It does not[1]. Doesn't really matter though, as there's no cert to be granted here: State v. State can only be adjudicated in SCOTUS. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/glossary-of-legal-terms https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/educational-resources/g...
Kina 6y ago
The Court does not grant cert for this. Disputes between states are one of the few instances where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and thus, it is the trial court.
jcranmer 6y ago
Docketed means that SCOTUS will consider the petition. It is extremely unusual that SCOTUS does not docket a case; you basically have to be a vexatious litigant to reach that stage. Considering a petition is not even close to a guarantee of certiorari. There are several thousand petitions filed a year, and SCOTUS will hear about 70-ish cases a year.

iaw 6y ago

The title is pretty misleading with "officially" in there. It should probably be the title of the case right?

dvt 6y ago

Pretty clever move by the GOP lawyers, making it an interstate issue (which, by definition, only SCOTUS can handle). Obviously SCOTUS can see through this, but it's a neat little legal strategy, regardless. I guess my only question would be if Texas really has standing here.

metiscus 6y ago
I am not a lawyer but I think the most likely result of this suit is for SCOTUS to deny it on the grounds of standing. You could see the court use something similar to Alabama v Arizona or possibly Mass. v Missouri. If they deny on standing, they can remove themselves from the spotlight while not having to decide on the merits which are extremely radioactive given that the future of the court is intertwined (albeit indirectly) in the outcome of any merits finding.
deathanatos 6y ago
An interstate issue. "Intra-" means "within", "inter-" means between. (The "Internet" is between networks; the "interstate" highways are between states; your LAN is the "intranet" though I think that term has become somewhat archaic.)
- dvt 6y ago
  Whoops fixed :)

imoverclocked 6y ago

“... The American Experiment will founder.” I think they meant “flounder” but it’s only words. I’m always amazed when I read official documents that will likely live long beyond my lifetime which contain silly typos or obviously flawed reasoning.

DennisP 6y ago
I think they meant "founder," as in the intransigent verb: "to become disabled, to give way, to become submerged, to come to grief." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder
- imoverclocked 6y ago
  til: founder as a verb. Thanks for that!
  - DennisP 6y ago
    You're welcome and, er, I meant "intransitive," not "intransigent," which is a whole different thing :)

ada1981 6y ago

Why is this flagged? This is actual news from the us gov. Trolls...

conroy 6y ago
The title is heavily editorialized. From the guidelines: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

throw0101a 6y ago

An observation about SCOTUS (not) taking state-versus-state cases: > 5. One of the factors the Justices look to is whether the issues in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. Thus, the Court usually denies leave unless it's a uniquely state-state dispute (again, like borders/water). > 6. Among lots of other things, that's almost certainly fatal to this crazy new Texas suit. As we've seen, these claims are already being brought in private suits in each of those states. Texas offers no explanation for why the issues can't be (and aren't being) addressed there. > 7. And it's not for nothing that the Justices don't like "original" cases, partly because they don't come with a well-developed record and set of opinions from lower courts. > Indeed, the "original" docket has shrunk to an average of <1 argued case per Term in recent years. > 8. The other reason they don't like these cases is because they're worried about opening the floodgates. If Texas can sue these states over how they conduct their elections, what's to stop Vermont from suing Texas over how it regulates the oil industry, or other permutations. * https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329907400425488 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329907400425488 Another case against PA was dismissed today: * https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejects-bid-to-overturn-bidens-win-in-pennsylvania-443751 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/08/supreme-court-rejec...

jcranmer 6y ago

Anyone who thinks that Texas has a shot of winning is either high or knows nothing of law. The basis of the case is that PA, GA, WI, and MI erred in enacting unconstitutional election measures, and therefore their election results should be annulled. And this must fail for several reasons. First, Texas doesn't have standing to sue. Texas isn't injured by Pennsylvania's laws. Texas argues its standing on the basis of--wait for it--it makes its electoral votes meaningless. However, the electoral college has a fixed number of votes, so Texas can't even make a "vote dilution" basis for its votes, which is how the usual basis for standing. Therefore, the manner of which any other state chooses its votes literally has no effect on Texas's vote, although this would theoretically change if Texas adopted the National Popular Vote Compact. Second, jurisdiction. These are challenges of other states' laws, other states' practices, and sometimes against other states' constitutions (the claim against PA in particular for the latter). The natural forum for this would obviously be the relevant state courts, although states can't sue each other in state courts usually--which brings back to standing, as Texas not having the ability to sue for these claims strongly suggests that Texas doesn't have standing in the first place. Third, these claims have already been litigated, and already lost, and sometimes those losses have been repeatedly reaffirmed. That horse is well and truly dead, so stop beating it. Fourth, election procedure claims that arise after the election are strongly disfavored. You usually have to justify why you couldn't bring the claim before the election, and waiting a full month after the election to bring the case does not look good (of course, see point #3 for why Texas brought the case). Fifth, for SCOTUS original jurisdiction claims specifically, SCOTUS really doesn't like original jurisdiction. So states really need to show why they couldn't bring the claim up in other forums. Such as objecting to electors in the House, which is how the Constitution explains it is supposed to be done. (Of course, there is a law that says that votes certified by a specific date will not be questioned by the House). Finally, relief. It's established in SCOTUS precedent that, even in election procedure claims arising after the election, the votes that are validly cast under the procedure are still to be counted. Asking the state legislatures to select their electoral slates as relief is not only literally unprecedented, but it is the exact opposite of what precedent specifies for relief. This is the stupidest of the election cases I've seen so far, and I thought the legislator arguing that he couldn't reasonably be expected to know the law was pretty bad.

6y ago