5 ms·

I'm not in a place to practice google-fu, but if I'm remembering correctly, wasn't the Texas lawsuit not heard by the USSC because they didn't follow the protoc

I'm not in a place to practice google-fu, but if I'm remembering correctly, wasn't the Texas lawsuit not heard by the USSC because they didn't follow the protocol necessary to have a case heard by the USSC?

bdowling 6y ago
> because they didn't follow the protocol necessary Texas followed the protocol, which included filing a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however denied the motion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
- jackson1442 6y ago
  Interesting, I thought all appeals to the USSC required moving through the federal court system first.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    This was original jurisdiction. Cases between states start here.
    - dogwhistle111 6y ago
      The supreme court in fact ruled against Texas in dismissing the suit, by mkaing it clear that each state has sole discretion on how to run their own elections, as prescribed by the Constitution. Whether state elections laws were followed was for state courts to decide, not Texas and not the federal supreme court
      - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        States can run their own elections. So long as they abide by Article2, which indisputably, PA, MI, WI, GA did not. NV did use their legislature to make the changes which is why they weren’t a defendant. Texas’s position was that they states didn’t follow the constitution and the winner of these federal elections would effect rule and law in Texas.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    It's uncommon, but the Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." U.S. Const. Art. III. Here, Texas attempted to sue four other states over how they conducted their elections, so it fell under original jurisdiction.
kemitchell 6y ago
Here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86... 155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bdowling 6y ago

> because they didn't follow the protocol necessary Texas followed the protocol, which included filing a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however denied the motion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...

jackson1442 6y ago
Interesting, I thought all appeals to the USSC required moving through the federal court system first.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  This was original jurisdiction. Cases between states start here.
  - dogwhistle111 6y ago
    The supreme court in fact ruled against Texas in dismissing the suit, by mkaing it clear that each state has sole discretion on how to run their own elections, as prescribed by the Constitution. Whether state elections laws were followed was for state courts to decide, not Texas and not the federal supreme court
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      States can run their own elections. So long as they abide by Article2, which indisputably, PA, MI, WI, GA did not. NV did use their legislature to make the changes which is why they weren’t a defendant. Texas’s position was that they states didn’t follow the constitution and the winner of these federal elections would effect rule and law in Texas.
- bdowling 6y ago
  It's uncommon, but the Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." U.S. Const. Art. III. Here, Texas attempted to sue four other states over how they conducted their elections, so it fell under original jurisdiction.

kemitchell 6y ago

Here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86... 155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]