4 ms·

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.

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.