4 ms·

I like to hear from a legal expert if Texas’ arguments here are any better than in their recent election lawsuit.

by barney54 6y ago

hexsprite 6y ago
Their election lawsuit was never heard on it's merits, so your comment doesn't really apply.
- cure 6y ago
  Well... let's say the reputation of the Texas AG is more than a little stained by that stunt. I think the skepticism is well deserved.
  - whammywon 6y ago
    Maybe so, but I wouldn't be surprised if it earned him brownie points from fervent Trump supporters. It may even get him re-elected by those supporters, assuming he isn't indicted...
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      You mean indicted again? He's been indicted on five counts of felony securities fraud for five years and is still being prosecuted.
      - whammywon 6y ago
        Ah I didn't know that he's already currently under indictment. Today I learned... But yes, if he has something that he can point to when re-election time comes around and say "Look, I tried to help Trump out" then it will probably guarantee him votes. I'm a Texas resident and didn't know he had already been indicted. But I tend to vote Libertarian for local and state positions so I didn't really look too much into his background.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    The AG of Texas is an indicted fraudster whose deputies keep quitting as whistleblowers alleging further crimes, and the FBI is investigating him for bribery. The election stunt is a pretty obvious play for a pardon from Trump.
    - whammywon 6y ago
      Can pardons be given prior to conviction? Edit: According to NBC News, POTUS can pre-emptively issue a pardon. [0] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/could-trump-pardon-family-members-if-they-haven-t-been-n1249707 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/could-trump-pa...
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah also signed the effort to overturn the election results of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (who are all absent from this action). The overlap is interesting, IMO.
- wavefunction 6y ago
  The argument was literally that the State of Texas has an interest in the elections of other states and was rejected on a lack of standing which is an emphatic "No" to the argument.
  - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
    Standing is not merits. These are legal terms that have legal definitions.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Perhaps not in formal legal parlance, but if the top commenter was asking about merits in the common understanding of the term (which stands to reason given they are a non-lawyer) then standing is definitely an aspect of the merits of a case.
      - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        "Heard on its merits" is a legal phrase as well. I think hexsprite knew exactly what they were trying to say.
        NoodleIncident 6y ago
        That doesn't mean it was a relevant response to the parent comment, which did not use any legal phrases. They just asked if the case was any good or not. Since 7 justices said they didn't have standing, and the other 2 said it was impossible to grant relief, it's pretty clear that the case as a whole was not any good. Using a misleading legal phrase to imply that the case had non-legalese "merit" that the courts chose to ignore is.. misleading.
        jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        No, if they wanted to deny the case on its merits they could have done so. They chose to deny standing instead, probably to avoid pissing a lot of people off. They did not say it was impossible to grant relief, they said they would not grant relief. What this means is open to interpretation, for example, they could rule that the elections were conducted in violation of the Elections Clause but that it is up to the state legislatures to decide which electors to appoint, which would actually be a good outcome for the Trump campaign. In order to say whether the case is good or not you would have to point to something specific that makes it legally weak. E.g. controlling precedent. Standing has no bearing on the merits of the case, so everyone using standing as an argument is not making a real argument but is just playing a shell game.
- dimator 6y ago
  I don't understand your comment. Did the SCOTUS not read the whole thing before passing on it?
  - mankyd 6y ago
    Whether they read it or not, they didn't comment on its merits, but rather said plainly that Texas doesn't have standing. That is to say, something may be amiss, but Texas can't be the one to sue over it. It's like if something went missing in your house, and your neighbor decides to sue because they think a thief stole your stuff and you didn't do a good enough job investigating.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Wouldn't the lack of standing be an aspect of the merits of the suit? In any case, the supreme court isn't the sole judge of the merits of a case, they are just the arbiters of the outcome.
      - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        The case went to the Supreme Court. It wasn't tried in any lower courts because cases between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can reject a case for lack of standing (the plaintiff does not have the right to sue the defendant) or for lack of merit (the lawsuit is obviously frivolous). They can also reject it if they think the lower court ruled correctly, but that doesn't apply here.
      - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
        In English, yes. However, "on the merits" is a term of art that explicitly excludes procedural matters like "can you even bring this case" or "did you file on time." Standing is a procedural issue. So while the suit was thrown out for being obviously faulty, it did not fail "on its merits." Mind you, that does not make the objection sensible. If I write "they are bad because they are a poopy face" in crayon, and then I don't pay my filing fees and the case is thrown out for that reason, I am technically correct that my case was not heard on its merits, but that doesn't make it a good point.
- spdustin 6y ago
  I know you're writing about the Texas lawsuit, but that suit was tangentially related to, among others, the lawsuit in Wisconsin, which made similar allegations that state laws were not being followed. Generously, that lawsuit in Wisconsin was heard on its merits [0]. It was dismissed with prejudice. The Federal judge that issued the ruling—a Trump appointee—said: "This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff “asks that the Rule of Law be followed.” (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been." [0]: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423518/trump_case_decision.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423518/trump_ca...
StillBored 6y ago
As a Texan this is really what upsets me more about these fake lawsuits that Texas keeps tossing out, mostly to make political statements. The election suit is hardly the first. Someone appears to have discovered that the state can't be censured or have its legal license revoked. So they are making a mockery of the actual legal power of the state. But of course anyone who digs into the jurisdictional games the Texas AG has been playing to avoid criminal prosecution wouldn't be surprised at this behavior.
dang 6y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jeffbee 6y ago
  How is that unrelated? The lead AG in this suit filed a different suit less than a week ago with some incredibly spurious reasoning, including that the president-elect of the USA stood only a 1-per-1000000000000000 chance of having won the election fairly.
  - dang 6y ago
    It's a different suit on a different topic and there is a substantive article to discuss about it. I assume the courts will consider this case on its merits, so I don't see why we shouldn't. If the thread turns into an argument about the election, the discussion will become entirely predictable, angry and stupid, which is not interesting, which is off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

I like to hear from a legal expert if Texas’ arguments here are any better than in their recent election lawsuit.

hexsprite 6y ago

Their election lawsuit was never heard on it's merits, so your comment doesn't really apply.

cure 6y ago
Well... let's say the reputation of the Texas AG is more than a little stained by that stunt. I think the skepticism is well deserved.
- whammywon 6y ago
  Maybe so, but I wouldn't be surprised if it earned him brownie points from fervent Trump supporters. It may even get him re-elected by those supporters, assuming he isn't indicted...
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    You mean indicted again? He's been indicted on five counts of felony securities fraud for five years and is still being prosecuted.
    - whammywon 6y ago
      Ah I didn't know that he's already currently under indictment. Today I learned... But yes, if he has something that he can point to when re-election time comes around and say "Look, I tried to help Trump out" then it will probably guarantee him votes. I'm a Texas resident and didn't know he had already been indicted. But I tend to vote Libertarian for local and state positions so I didn't really look too much into his background.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  The AG of Texas is an indicted fraudster whose deputies keep quitting as whistleblowers alleging further crimes, and the FBI is investigating him for bribery. The election stunt is a pretty obvious play for a pardon from Trump.
  - whammywon 6y ago
    Can pardons be given prior to conviction? Edit: According to NBC News, POTUS can pre-emptively issue a pardon. [0] - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/could-trump-pardon-family-members-if-they-haven-t-been-n1249707 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/could-trump-pa...
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah also signed the effort to overturn the election results of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (who are all absent from this action). The overlap is interesting, IMO.
wavefunction 6y ago
The argument was literally that the State of Texas has an interest in the elections of other states and was rejected on a lack of standing which is an emphatic "No" to the argument.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  Standing is not merits. These are legal terms that have legal definitions.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Perhaps not in formal legal parlance, but if the top commenter was asking about merits in the common understanding of the term (which stands to reason given they are a non-lawyer) then standing is definitely an aspect of the merits of a case.
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      "Heard on its merits" is a legal phrase as well. I think hexsprite knew exactly what they were trying to say.
      - NoodleIncident 6y ago
        That doesn't mean it was a relevant response to the parent comment, which did not use any legal phrases. They just asked if the case was any good or not. Since 7 justices said they didn't have standing, and the other 2 said it was impossible to grant relief, it's pretty clear that the case as a whole was not any good. Using a misleading legal phrase to imply that the case had non-legalese "merit" that the courts chose to ignore is.. misleading.
        jeffreyrogers 6y ago
        No, if they wanted to deny the case on its merits they could have done so. They chose to deny standing instead, probably to avoid pissing a lot of people off. They did not say it was impossible to grant relief, they said they would not grant relief. What this means is open to interpretation, for example, they could rule that the elections were conducted in violation of the Elections Clause but that it is up to the state legislatures to decide which electors to appoint, which would actually be a good outcome for the Trump campaign. In order to say whether the case is good or not you would have to point to something specific that makes it legally weak. E.g. controlling precedent. Standing has no bearing on the merits of the case, so everyone using standing as an argument is not making a real argument but is just playing a shell game.
dimator 6y ago
I don't understand your comment. Did the SCOTUS not read the whole thing before passing on it?
- mankyd 6y ago
  Whether they read it or not, they didn't comment on its merits, but rather said plainly that Texas doesn't have standing. That is to say, something may be amiss, but Texas can't be the one to sue over it. It's like if something went missing in your house, and your neighbor decides to sue because they think a thief stole your stuff and you didn't do a good enough job investigating.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Wouldn't the lack of standing be an aspect of the merits of the suit? In any case, the supreme court isn't the sole judge of the merits of a case, they are just the arbiters of the outcome.
    - jeffreyrogers 6y ago
      The case went to the Supreme Court. It wasn't tried in any lower courts because cases between states have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can reject a case for lack of standing (the plaintiff does not have the right to sue the defendant) or for lack of merit (the lawsuit is obviously frivolous). They can also reject it if they think the lower court ruled correctly, but that doesn't apply here.
    - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
      In English, yes. However, "on the merits" is a term of art that explicitly excludes procedural matters like "can you even bring this case" or "did you file on time." Standing is a procedural issue. So while the suit was thrown out for being obviously faulty, it did not fail "on its merits." Mind you, that does not make the objection sensible. If I write "they are bad because they are a poopy face" in crayon, and then I don't pay my filing fees and the case is thrown out for that reason, I am technically correct that my case was not heard on its merits, but that doesn't make it a good point.
spdustin 6y ago
I know you're writing about the Texas lawsuit, but that suit was tangentially related to, among others, the lawsuit in Wisconsin, which made similar allegations that state laws were not being followed. Generously, that lawsuit in Wisconsin was heard on its merits [0]. It was dismissed with prejudice. The Federal judge that issued the ruling—a Trump appointee—said: "This is an extraordinary case. A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff “asks that the Rule of Law be followed.” (Pl. Br., ECF No. 109.) It has been." [0]: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423518/trump_case_decision.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423518/trump_ca...

StillBored 6y ago

As a Texan this is really what upsets me more about these fake lawsuits that Texas keeps tossing out, mostly to make political statements. The election suit is hardly the first. Someone appears to have discovered that the state can't be censured or have its legal license revoked. So they are making a mockery of the actual legal power of the state. But of course anyone who digs into the jurisdictional games the Texas AG has been playing to avoid criminal prosecution wouldn't be surprised at this behavior.

dang 6y ago

"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jeffbee 6y ago
How is that unrelated? The lead AG in this suit filed a different suit less than a week ago with some incredibly spurious reasoning, including that the president-elect of the USA stood only a 1-per-1000000000000000 chance of having won the election fairly.
- dang 6y ago
  It's a different suit on a different topic and there is a substantive article to discuss about it. I assume the courts will consider this case on its merits, so I don't see why we shouldn't. If the thread turns into an argument about the election, the discussion will become entirely predictable, angry and stupid, which is not interesting, which is off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)