3 ms·

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

by 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.

by 99_00 6y ago

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.