5 ms·

The Supreme court declined to hear that case yesterday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-nullify-biden-win-i

The Supreme court declined to hear that case yesterday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-nullify-biden-win-in-pennsylvania https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-...

slumdev 6y ago
That is false. The Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief. They did not deny certiorari.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  That is false. The request for emergency injunctive relief was also the request for certiorari. In denying the relief, they closed out the docket and denied certiorari in the process. And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.
  - citilife 6y ago
    Kelly was discussing that this morning on the radio still had it pending at SCOTUS. They believe it may be merged with the Texas case. So, unless I'm missing something, the former comment appeared correct.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      This is the link to the actual docket of the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live. If you read the original brief, this is what it requests: > Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable. In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)
quotemstr 6y ago
No, that's a different case. The case Cruz has promised to assist is one in which the state of Texas (yes, the whole thing) is suing other states over alleged election irregularities. When one state sues another, the case goes directly to the supreme court.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  And the Texas case is very sound. It gets directly into specific cases and doesn't go down any of the silly Q/Conspiracy routes. Viva does a great analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tb11okydc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tb11okydc
  - rat87 6y ago
    The Texas case is an insane attack on democracy that isn't going anywhere But just because it isn't doesn't excuse the Republicans that are attacking our democracy just to soothe an old narcissists ego
    - User23 6y ago
      Texas v. is a great case to put in front of a bunch of originalists. You should definitely brace yourself for a ruling that state courts illegally changed election rules because the constitution solely grants that power to the legislatures of the states. Edit: if they do the states in question will probably call special legislative sessions to repair the defect.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        You should prepare yourself for a ruling that a state cannot challenge another state's laws before SCOTUS.
        disgrunt 6y ago
        Not sure how you can be so confident, considering how many times the SCOTUS has previously decided interstate disputes? [0] [0]: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/29-suits-between-two-or-more-states.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/29-suits-be...

slumdev 6y ago

That is false. The Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief. They did not deny certiorari.

jcranmer 6y ago
That is false. The request for emergency injunctive relief was also the request for certiorari. In denying the relief, they closed out the docket and denied certiorari in the process. And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.
- citilife 6y ago
  Kelly was discussing that this morning on the radio still had it pending at SCOTUS. They believe it may be merged with the Texas case. So, unless I'm missing something, the former comment appeared correct.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    This is the link to the actual docket of the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live. If you read the original brief, this is what it requests: > Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable. In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)

quotemstr 6y ago

No, that's a different case. The case Cruz has promised to assist is one in which the state of Texas (yes, the whole thing) is suing other states over alleged election irregularities. When one state sues another, the case goes directly to the supreme court.

djsumdog 6y ago
And the Texas case is very sound. It gets directly into specific cases and doesn't go down any of the silly Q/Conspiracy routes. Viva does a great analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tb11okydc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tb11okydc
- rat87 6y ago
  The Texas case is an insane attack on democracy that isn't going anywhere But just because it isn't doesn't excuse the Republicans that are attacking our democracy just to soothe an old narcissists ego
  - User23 6y ago
    Texas v. is a great case to put in front of a bunch of originalists. You should definitely brace yourself for a ruling that state courts illegally changed election rules because the constitution solely grants that power to the legislatures of the states. Edit: if they do the states in question will probably call special legislative sessions to repair the defect.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      You should prepare yourself for a ruling that a state cannot challenge another state's laws before SCOTUS.
      - disgrunt 6y ago
        Not sure how you can be so confident, considering how many times the SCOTUS has previously decided interstate disputes? [0] [0]: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/29-suits-between-two-or-more-states.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/29-suits-be...