“Legally doesn’t merit a hearing”? What does that mean? What merits a hearing according to the law and constitution?
if its not dismissed nor rejected. again which of trumo's lawsuits has a strong legal argument which deserves to be heard by the SC? answer at least one... “Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” “Voters, not lawyers, choose the president,” “Ballots, not briefs, decide elections.” what's your legal argument @durvasa ESQ?
Perhaps I can help here... should the USSC give an opinion on every case, regardless of the merits of the case? I believe most people are saying this case doesn't have a legal basis. I think most people believe this case is frivolous. For those reasons the people are saying the USSC should not render an opinion.
I get that. But even where the legal case appears flimsy, as in this case, I’d argue that under extraordinary circumstances of considerable national importance — like when up to 40% of the electorate thinks the election was stolen — it is justified for the SC to give an opinion. Nothing in law prevents the Supreme Court from taking up a case, even one widely considered frivolous, under those circumstances.
If so, consider the legal precedence they would be setting. *Every* election from this point forward will involve the loser making similar claims. Since the basis for the USSC choosing to get involved will *not* be a legal basis, but rather a political one. America's entire elective process for government will be turned into a judicially decided government. There will *always* be a "40% of the country wanted the losing candidate to win". Or does a heavily trump-appointed supreme court prove they were only ruling to benefit trump by not taking up the 2024 losing candidate's case? Instead, this court has to make the correct legal (and for the good of the country's elective process, practical) decision by refusing to even humor this frivolous case that doesn't even have legal basis.
I disagree with the premise of your question, that a legal argument must be “strong” for the SC to write an opinion on it.
I'm not saying it needs to be strong. it needs a legal argument. what's the strongest legal argument of your team then? I'm pretty sure you can name at least one
The heart of the disagreement is you think a formal statement validates the legal case, while not making a statement helps to invalidate it and discourage these sort of politically-motivated cases in the future. My view is making a formal statement can actually help to invalidate these type of cases by putting forward strong arguments, from the highest legal authority in the nation, that tear it to pieces. And not taking up the case (i.e. silence) will more likely encourage these blatantly political cases to come up again and again in the future.
This hasn't proven not to be true in many other cases such as Obamacare. The crazies just decide that the justices were traitors/corrupt/liberal/whatever. In these election cases, they've already turned on Trump appointed judges, state GOP officials that they voted for, and on and accused them of working with communists to rig the election. What makes you think it would be different here?
You are implying in your self-contradicting question that Trump’s lawyers are my team. And you expect me to answer? Why should I if you’re just going to continue to be an insulting jackass?
USSC conservative justices are much higher profile and are more respected. A strong rebuke of the Trump team’s argument from them will make a difference. I don’t know it for sure, but that’s what I would predict. And for those who turn against them, they will appear even more crazy to the more centered Republicans, which is a good thing.
Again, that's been shown not to be true in several USSC decisions over the last few months where Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavenaugh were all called traitors. These people want the USSC to give the election to Trump for political reasons - not legal ones. They aren't even going to read the legal opinions. We'd have thought that a month ago too, but what's really just happened is more Republicans are becoming un-centered and joining the lunatic fringe. They listen to Trump and no one else. When Trump tells them the Supreme Court cheated him, they'll believe him.
I mean you are fighting for Trump's legal argument to be heard by the US SC regardless if they're 40 losses in the lower courts right?
Whether a rebuke from the USSC does much help or not, I don’t see it as doing more harm than them just remaining silent on it. Bad legal theories that are being trotted out by malignant political actors, to great harm to the nation, warrant some kind of official censure from the highest court. Just on principle, even if it happens to be the case that it doesn’t have much of an effect.
The harm it will cause is setting the precedence that the USSC will hear all political cases regardless of legal basis or frivolousness. That is a huge "harm". At best it puts the court in the position of humoring a madman. And at worst, it inserts the judicial branch into another national political election (in this case, without legal basis). And establishes a precedence... "don't like the results of the election, cry foul and demand a USSC hearing. And... demand that the USSC overturn a majority election. The court refusing to take up the case *is* the correct ethical and legal move. It tells the petitioner (1) there is no legal basis and (2) your case is frivolous. Having the USSC even agree to even consider the case is exactly the result trump wants. It delays the transition to Biden, it creates even more question about the election and legitimacy of the election. And given all of the past courtroom losses that haven't deterred trump... even if after a few weeks the USSC rules against him, trump and his supporters won't think or act any differently. There will be a new claim, a new complaint, and new request for a delay.
btw... to the question "what harm could be caused by having the USSC agree to hear trump's case?"... lets just add more delay.
