3 ms·
The court has already unanimously declined to interfere in the election in the PA case. The TX case isn’t going to be suddenly different.
by garmaine 6y ago
The court has already unanimously declined to interfere in the election in the PA case. The TX case isn’t going to be suddenly different.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y agoThe court decided not to approve an injunction to stop certification in the PA case. They have not dismissed the case, they have not indicated they will not hear the case. Also, don’t mistake the lack of an opinion or dissent as unanimous. Court vote was not disclosed. No one dissented, which is interesting given Alito’s push in PA for them to segregate ballots prior to this. The Texas case is not asking for any injunction. Now with 18-20 additional states added on it (amici curiae) is making a 14th amendment argument that the four defendants changed election laws without going through their legislatures, a direct and indisputable violation of Article 2. That this damages Texans, that if the states aren’t held to the constitution, then what is the point? But I don’t think the cases will be heard, I have no idea, my point isn’t what the percentage chance is, it’s that it is not zero.... as I understand it.
- garmaine 6y agoAlso dropped in a no-nonsense 9-0 opinion. There's really no basis for these lawsuits.