4 ms·

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 e

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...
        nl 6y ago
        It's unclear if you realise, but this isn't the same thing at all. SCOTUS settles interstate disputes all the time. But one of the things they look at before they hear a dispute is if the dispute can be settled in a lower court. In this case, Texas is complaining about the way otehr states conduct their affairs. The normal course to do this would be via the states courts (that is literally what they exist for). It's very unclear why SCOTUS would hear this instead of directing Texas to file in the state courts. (There's also the question of standing, but that's another hurdle Texas would have to overcome)
        disgrunt 6y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that other parties have already attempted to dispute the unconstitutional election changes in those state courts, including their supreme courts, and they've been unanimously dismissed for jurisdictional or procedural reasons. For example, I believe the application of laches in Pennsylvania to be improper because Republicans had sought a stay of the election changes prior to the election. Thus far, it appears the Pennsylvania courts refuse to adjudicate the constitutionality of these election changes.
        nl 6y ago
        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-12/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-donald-trump-us-elecion/12978044 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-12/supreme-court-rejects... They rejected it. Once again it was a fantasy disconnected to facts.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        Because the interstate disputes SCOTUS has heard and decided are not about states challenging other states' interpretations of their own laws, but almost entirely about who actually has various water rights? Because the suit alleged here is almost exactly the kind of interstate dispute that SCOTUS has rejected to hear as recently as 2016 (Nebraska v Colorado)?
- jeffbee 6y ago
  If you find this convincing I weep for the people who have to interact with you on the daily. The Texas suit is completely bananas and relies on ten pages of complete gibberish from a 75-year-old energy economist consultant. Please read the appendix of the suit. If you know anything about statistics, you'll find it to be total nonsense.
  - nl 6y ago
    Do you have a link? This is the filing but doesn't seem to have the appendix: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      It's at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/2020... Look for "Declaration of Charles J. Cicchetti"
      - nl 6y ago
        Oh wow. Too quote: The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—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, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). This - of course - is only true assuming votes are evenly distributed though out each state, and urban centers vote the same as country areas. He doesn't even mention that in his affidavit. And he tries to use Z-scores to claim that it's impossible this mean people voted differently compared to 2016! That's ridiculous and - very notably - he fails to to do the same for eg Trump vs Romney or Obama vs Clinton. No wonder trust in science is decreasing with people asking us to take this crap seriously.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  I'll link to what I said last night about the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 There are 6 reasons for SCOTUS to dismiss it before it even considers the merits. Anyone who thinks the case has a chance does not understand SCOTUS.
  - matwood 6y ago
    Thank you for this. I was about to link to a Twitter thread laying out the same reasoning.
- nl 6y ago
  The Texas case isn't sound at all. UTexas Law Professor says about it: "It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category" and "o chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous, offensive, and wasteful one, but a stunt nonetheless."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    So a liberal professor in Austin, who is also a CNn analyst, thinks it's a "crazy stunt" with no actual law analysis? [0] And his peers are on the Biden transition team? [1] Well, I'm convinced. [0]: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck [1]: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/university-of-texas/joe-biden-transition-team-ut-austin-professors/269-11cb621a-b375-4a35-8dfe-26805726a6f2 https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/university-of-te...

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...
      - nl 6y ago
        It's unclear if you realise, but this isn't the same thing at all. SCOTUS settles interstate disputes all the time. But one of the things they look at before they hear a dispute is if the dispute can be settled in a lower court. In this case, Texas is complaining about the way otehr states conduct their affairs. The normal course to do this would be via the states courts (that is literally what they exist for). It's very unclear why SCOTUS would hear this instead of directing Texas to file in the state courts. (There's also the question of standing, but that's another hurdle Texas would have to overcome)
        disgrunt 6y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that other parties have already attempted to dispute the unconstitutional election changes in those state courts, including their supreme courts, and they've been unanimously dismissed for jurisdictional or procedural reasons. For example, I believe the application of laches in Pennsylvania to be improper because Republicans had sought a stay of the election changes prior to the election. Thus far, it appears the Pennsylvania courts refuse to adjudicate the constitutionality of these election changes.
        nl 6y ago
        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-12/supreme-court-rejects-texas-lawsuit-donald-trump-us-elecion/12978044 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-12/supreme-court-rejects... They rejected it. Once again it was a fantasy disconnected to facts.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        Because the interstate disputes SCOTUS has heard and decided are not about states challenging other states' interpretations of their own laws, but almost entirely about who actually has various water rights? Because the suit alleged here is almost exactly the kind of interstate dispute that SCOTUS has rejected to hear as recently as 2016 (Nebraska v Colorado)?
jeffbee 6y ago
If you find this convincing I weep for the people who have to interact with you on the daily. The Texas suit is completely bananas and relies on ten pages of complete gibberish from a 75-year-old energy economist consultant. Please read the appendix of the suit. If you know anything about statistics, you'll find it to be total nonsense.
- nl 6y ago
  Do you have a link? This is the filing but doesn't seem to have the appendix: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    It's at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/2020... Look for "Declaration of Charles J. Cicchetti"
    - nl 6y ago
      Oh wow. Too quote: The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—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, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). This - of course - is only true assuming votes are evenly distributed though out each state, and urban centers vote the same as country areas. He doesn't even mention that in his affidavit. And he tries to use Z-scores to claim that it's impossible this mean people voted differently compared to 2016! That's ridiculous and - very notably - he fails to to do the same for eg Trump vs Romney or Obama vs Clinton. No wonder trust in science is decreasing with people asking us to take this crap seriously.
jcranmer 6y ago
I'll link to what I said last night about the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 There are 6 reasons for SCOTUS to dismiss it before it even considers the merits. Anyone who thinks the case has a chance does not understand SCOTUS.
- matwood 6y ago
  Thank you for this. I was about to link to a Twitter thread laying out the same reasoning.
nl 6y ago
The Texas case isn't sound at all. UTexas Law Professor says about it: "It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category" and "o chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous, offensive, and wasteful one, but a stunt nonetheless."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560
- disgrunt 6y ago
  So a liberal professor in Austin, who is also a CNn analyst, thinks it's a "crazy stunt" with no actual law analysis? [0] And his peers are on the Biden transition team? [1] Well, I'm convinced. [0]: https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck [1]: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/university-of-texas/joe-biden-transition-team-ut-austin-professors/269-11cb621a-b375-4a35-8dfe-26805726a6f2 https://www.kvue.com/article/news/education/university-of-te...