7 ms·

Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Overturn Election Results

LatteLazy 6y ago
I don't have a horse in this race, but... does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?
- tzs 6y ago
  I believe (but am not fully sure for all of those states) that they already were, and were rejected by the highest state courts in those states. The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws. That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law. I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections. EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2. EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Thanks!
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.) OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.
  - mmastrac 6y ago
    Trump and pro-Trump litigants have barely been able to articulate English sentences, let alone arguments. The complaints were laughably full of typos, errors, and just plain old falsehoods. It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.
- paradygm 6y ago
  According to the WSJ article I read, states have the privilege of petitioning the court directly. Anyone else attempting to file a similar suit faces years of filings, appeals, and then the Supreme Court actually deciding to hear the case, so highly unlikely.
- guiiuc 6y ago
  Why just these four states? The vote counts in Florida, Ohio, Texas, and N Carolina are all pretty fishy.
- Volundr 6y ago
  No one would have standing to go directly to the SC over it. Theoretically any citizen of the state, and potentially the losing candidate would have standing to bring the case, but they'd first have to go through the lower courts (as the Trump campaign did in PA), before going to the SC.
tzs 6y ago
Here's the NPR story on this [1], for people who are past their limit on free Bloomberg articles. Here's what the Court said [2]. [1] https://text.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shuts-door-on-trump-election-prospects https://text.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shut... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
ohiovr 6y ago
It's over. The country belongs to the people of the United States as it was intended to be. December 14th is coming and nothing will stop it now.
- ilamont 6y ago
  There is a team of lawyers and politicians still trying to exploit every loophole and legal hack in the books, including the joint session to formally declare the winner: There remains one last-ditch chance for electoral votes to be tossed. On January 6, the Senate and the House will convene to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner of the election. The joint session of Congress is required by law to ratify presidential results, but also allows "members to object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced," according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Procedure calls for Vice President Pence to open each state's "certificate of ascertainment" — documents prepared by the state after it has completed its vote count and ascertained the official results. He will then present the certificate to four "tellers," who announce result tallies. Once a candidate reaches 270 electoral college votes, Pence will declare the winner. Lawmakers may object to the results — even if it's not their home state — leaving the door open for representatives who support Mr. Trump's unproven claims of widespread election fraud to interrupt the typically ceremonial process. According to a Washington Post survey, only 25 congressional Republicans have acknowledged President-elect Biden's victory. And 222 Republicans — in the House and Senate — will not say who won the election. Some may lodge their objections during the January 6 session. Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has already said he would challenge Georgia and Pennsylvania's results, claiming flawed election systems, Politico first reported. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-presidential-election-results-trump-challenge/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-presidential-...
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Expanding on that "last-ditch chance" a little more, if an objection is raised during the joint session of Congress, there are then votes held in the House and Senate separately to decide whether to reject the electoral votes that are in question. Unless both chambers agree, the electoral votes remain valid and must be tallied. At least that's my non-expert understanding from reading 3 U.S. Code § 15: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
mmastrac 6y ago
Thank effing god this nightmare of sore losing is over. It's tough to say if America can recover from Trump, but the first step is removing the problem from your life.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  Trump will continue to bellyache about it because his supporters will send him money to defeat the “deep state,” so expect more moronic headlines until the media decides to stop paying attention to him.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Trump will continue to bellyache about it because his supporters will send him money to defeat the “deep state,” A good point. the Trump "Legal Defense Fund" fundraising effort[0] sends the vast majority of donations to the RNC and Trump's own PAC. What's more, that fundraising effort has netted more than USD$200,000,000[1], yet the total monies spent on litigation by Trump and his campaign are less than USD$5,000,000. The grift is on and it's working marvelously. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idINKBN27R30B https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump-fundra... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/trump-pac-fundraising-442775 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/trump-pac-fundraisi...
- User23 6y ago
  The last four years was already a nightmare of sore losing, what makes you think it's going to stop with the shoe on the other foot?
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    It is pretty amazing that Trump won the last election and still managed to be a sore loser for his entire presidency.
usr1106 6y ago
If it's on TV it's probably not the topic for HN.
BalinKing 6y ago
This submission directly violates HN guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
trump4moreyears 6y ago
Trump still has a chance. They are still 170k votes in Michigan that have just need discovered. https://twitter.com/therightmelissa/status/1337404126263734272?s=21 https://twitter.com/therightmelissa/status/13374041262637342... And Georgia’s signature verification needs to be done https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1337526606445809665?s=21 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/13375266064458096...
coolgod 6y ago
Let's see how many Americans truly believe in the four boxes of liberty.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  While true in a sense, that also tends to be a phrase used by folks eager to jump to that 4th box.
dmarchand90 6y ago
Interesting that the dissenting opinion did not have any Trump appointees
- nobody9999 6y ago
  The dissents relate to the issue of "Original Jurisdiction." In cases where there is a "controversy between the states," as the Texas suit falsely claimed it to be, The Supreme Court is the appropriate venue for first filings (i.e., as trier of facts, or the original jurisdiction). For all other matters the Supreme Court is strictly an appellate court (hearing appeals after inferior courts have already ruled). The Supreme Court has only very rarely denied such cases, as it's the only jurisdiction for them. Thomas and Alito thought that the case should at least be accepted. However, and it's a big however, both "dissenting" justices joined with the other seven in denying the "injunctive relief" requested by Texas (IIUC, delaying the appointment of electors in GA, MI, PA and WI). Since that relief wouldn't have been granted (that denial was unanimous), the certified electors would have been seated on Monday to cast their votes in each state. Remember, this isn't an appellate case. In these cases, SCOTUS sits as the trial court. Unless the court heard each side make their case, enter evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, rule on any further motions, objections, etc., heard closing arguments, debated amongst themselves, came to a decision and wrote an opinion prior to Monday (60 hours or so from now), the electors would have already cast their votes. Once that's done, it would render the the proceedings and the suit (because the relief requested by Texas was to invalidate the certified votes and the elections in all four states and have the respective legislatures appoint new electors) moot since the electors had already voted before they could rule. So. No. Unless the justices had granted the preliminary injunction, there was pretty much no way they could (let alone would) rule for Texas, since the relief requested would no longer be available. N.B. IANAL. Edit: Reorganized for clarity.
ErikVandeWater 6y ago
> They also said Texas waited so long to sue -- 34 days after the election -- that its claims became legally moot. Regarding this point, if there were lots of voter fraud as had been alleged, would it not take a considerable amount of time to gather the evidence necessary and write a complete suit?
- tzs 6y ago
  If there were lots of voter fraud, the people arranging the fraud would have also arranged to flip a couple more Senate seats. It's really silly to believe that Democrats were able to orchestrate a massive conspiracy to fraudulently flip votes, and do it in such a masterful way that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence to get a court case to last long enough for a trial, yet somehow forgot to do anything about the Senate.
- foogazi 6y ago
  >if there were lots of voter fraud This is not a fraud case - Rudy Giuliani https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE
laplacesdemon48 6y ago
Why is this post flagged? Does this not adhere to any guidelines? Genuinely curious.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  It's in the first section of the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
Fake news. The Supreme Court rejected the Texas bid for lack of standing.
cyrrus 6y ago
Who’s Trump?

I don't have a horse in this race, but... does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?

tzs 6y ago
I believe (but am not fully sure for all of those states) that they already were, and were rejected by the highest state courts in those states. The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws.
- wahern 6y ago
  > The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws. That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law. I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections. EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2. EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Thanks!
dragonwriter 6y ago
> does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.) OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  Trump and pro-Trump litigants have barely been able to articulate English sentences, let alone arguments. The complaints were laughably full of typos, errors, and just plain old falsehoods. It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.
paradygm 6y ago
According to the WSJ article I read, states have the privilege of petitioning the court directly. Anyone else attempting to file a similar suit faces years of filings, appeals, and then the Supreme Court actually deciding to hear the case, so highly unlikely.
guiiuc 6y ago
Why just these four states? The vote counts in Florida, Ohio, Texas, and N Carolina are all pretty fishy.
Volundr 6y ago
No one would have standing to go directly to the SC over it. Theoretically any citizen of the state, and potentially the losing candidate would have standing to bring the case, but they'd first have to go through the lower courts (as the Trump campaign did in PA), before going to the SC.

tzs 6y ago

Here's the NPR story on this [1], for people who are past their limit on free Bloomberg articles. Here's what the Court said [2]. [1] https://text.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shuts-door-on-trump-election-prospects https://text.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shut... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...

ohiovr 6y ago

It's over. The country belongs to the people of the United States as it was intended to be. December 14th is coming and nothing will stop it now.

ilamont 6y ago
There is a team of lawyers and politicians still trying to exploit every loophole and legal hack in the books, including the joint session to formally declare the winner: There remains one last-ditch chance for electoral votes to be tossed. On January 6, the Senate and the House will convene to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner of the election. The joint session of Congress is required by law to ratify presidential results, but also allows "members to object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced," according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Procedure calls for Vice President Pence to open each state's "certificate of ascertainment" — documents prepared by the state after it has completed its vote count and ascertained the official results. He will then present the certificate to four "tellers," who announce result tallies. Once a candidate reaches 270 electoral college votes, Pence will declare the winner. Lawmakers may object to the results — even if it's not their home state — leaving the door open for representatives who support Mr. Trump's unproven claims of widespread election fraud to interrupt the typically ceremonial process. According to a Washington Post survey, only 25 congressional Republicans have acknowledged President-elect Biden's victory. And 222 Republicans — in the House and Senate — will not say who won the election. Some may lodge their objections during the January 6 session. Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has already said he would challenge Georgia and Pennsylvania's results, claiming flawed election systems, Politico first reported. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-presidential-election-results-trump-challenge/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-presidential-...
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  Expanding on that "last-ditch chance" a little more, if an objection is raised during the joint session of Congress, there are then votes held in the House and Senate separately to decide whether to reject the electoral votes that are in question. Unless both chambers agree, the electoral votes remain valid and must be tallied. At least that's my non-expert understanding from reading 3 U.S. Code § 15: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

mmastrac 6y ago

Thank effing god this nightmare of sore losing is over. It's tough to say if America can recover from Trump, but the first step is removing the problem from your life.

faitswulff 6y ago
Trump will continue to bellyache about it because his supporters will send him money to defeat the “deep state,” so expect more moronic headlines until the media decides to stop paying attention to him.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Trump will continue to bellyache about it because his supporters will send him money to defeat the “deep state,” A good point. the Trump "Legal Defense Fund" fundraising effort[0] sends the vast majority of donations to the RNC and Trump's own PAC. What's more, that fundraising effort has netted more than USD$200,000,000[1], yet the total monies spent on litigation by Trump and his campaign are less than USD$5,000,000. The grift is on and it's working marvelously. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh/donations-under-8k-to-trump-election-defense-instead-go-to-president-rnc-idINKBN27R30B https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump-fundra... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/trump-pac-fundraising-442775 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/trump-pac-fundraisi...
User23 6y ago
The last four years was already a nightmare of sore losing, what makes you think it's going to stop with the shoe on the other foot?
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  It is pretty amazing that Trump won the last election and still managed to be a sore loser for his entire presidency.

usr1106 6y ago

If it's on TV it's probably not the topic for HN.

BalinKing 6y ago

This submission directly violates HN guidelines: > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

trump4moreyears 6y ago

Trump still has a chance. They are still 170k votes in Michigan that have just need discovered. https://twitter.com/therightmelissa/status/1337404126263734272?s=21 https://twitter.com/therightmelissa/status/13374041262637342... And Georgia’s signature verification needs to be done https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1337526606445809665?s=21 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/13375266064458096...

coolgod 6y ago

Let's see how many Americans truly believe in the four boxes of liberty.

ineedasername 6y ago
While true in a sense, that also tends to be a phrase used by folks eager to jump to that 4th box.

dmarchand90 6y ago

Interesting that the dissenting opinion did not have any Trump appointees

nobody9999 6y ago
The dissents relate to the issue of "Original Jurisdiction." In cases where there is a "controversy between the states," as the Texas suit falsely claimed it to be, The Supreme Court is the appropriate venue for first filings (i.e., as trier of facts, or the original jurisdiction). For all other matters the Supreme Court is strictly an appellate court (hearing appeals after inferior courts have already ruled). The Supreme Court has only very rarely denied such cases, as it's the only jurisdiction for them. Thomas and Alito thought that the case should at least be accepted. However, and it's a big however, both "dissenting" justices joined with the other seven in denying the "injunctive relief" requested by Texas (IIUC, delaying the appointment of electors in GA, MI, PA and WI). Since that relief wouldn't have been granted (that denial was unanimous), the certified electors would have been seated on Monday to cast their votes in each state. Remember, this isn't an appellate case. In these cases, SCOTUS sits as the trial court. Unless the court heard each side make their case, enter evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, rule on any further motions, objections, etc., heard closing arguments, debated amongst themselves, came to a decision and wrote an opinion prior to Monday (60 hours or so from now), the electors would have already cast their votes. Once that's done, it would render the the proceedings and the suit (because the relief requested by Texas was to invalidate the certified votes and the elections in all four states and have the respective legislatures appoint new electors) moot since the electors had already voted before they could rule. So. No. Unless the justices had granted the preliminary injunction, there was pretty much no way they could (let alone would) rule for Texas, since the relief requested would no longer be available. N.B. IANAL. Edit: Reorganized for clarity.

ErikVandeWater 6y ago

> They also said Texas waited so long to sue -- 34 days after the election -- that its claims became legally moot. Regarding this point, if there were lots of voter fraud as had been alleged, would it not take a considerable amount of time to gather the evidence necessary and write a complete suit?

tzs 6y ago
If there were lots of voter fraud, the people arranging the fraud would have also arranged to flip a couple more Senate seats. It's really silly to believe that Democrats were able to orchestrate a massive conspiracy to fraudulently flip votes, and do it in such a masterful way that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence to get a court case to last long enough for a trial, yet somehow forgot to do anything about the Senate.
foogazi 6y ago
>if there were lots of voter fraud This is not a fraud case - Rudy Giuliani https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE

laplacesdemon48 6y ago

Why is this post flagged? Does this not adhere to any guidelines? Genuinely curious.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
It's in the first section of the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago

Fake news. The Supreme Court rejected the Texas bid for lack of standing.

cyrrus 6y ago

Who’s Trump?