The Supreme Court is not obligated to render any opinion on a disinformation campaign no matter how many American's are duped by it. Everyone, even Trumps paid advocates, know this is just a political play to gin up emotions. The best way for the nation to deal with it is these embarrassing little losses until we are desensitized. The Donald looks ever more pathetic to the majority and any GOP with any integrity.
What case are you talking about that is based on "bad legal theories"? Most of these cases that have been tossed or rejected unanimously by lower court aren't even standing on any legal ground. They haven't even gone pass the "this is stupid" to the "bad legal theory" plate. The PA case yesterday was rejected unanimously by the PA supreme court and denied a hearing from the SC. What did Trump do today- that's not my case (it was not directly, although I'm quite sure he praised it in the past tweets). I think the only reason he hadn't yet go all out on the court is because he is hoping for "his" case to be heard. He claims he will be joining the TX case. Well, the TX case is based on repeated BS (on the "this is stupid" plate) that was already rejected. Is that the case you want the SC to eventually hear?
And meanwhile... collateral damage of trump's assault on our elections... but hey, lets humor trump and delays some more.
Oh, please, NewRoxFan! Quit your whining and call me when they do something REALLY dastardly...like remove all the "W"s from the keyboards!
Here is the TX case: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf I'm not a lawyer, but these do seem to be legal questions that are being raised -- whether or not the answers to the questions are obvious or just commonly-agreed upon by legal experts: 1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. My view is that a thorough dissection of the case from the USSC, rather than a casual dismissal, would put us on a stronger footing to avoid these sort of politically-motivated hijinks in the future.
Dave Weigel @daveweigel *Supreme Court rolls up lawsuit, sets it on fire, cooks s'mores with the embers* Look, what we need is for the court to provide us with some clarity Quote Tweet Igor Bobic @igorbobic · 18m Cruz says he is “disappointed” SCOTUS declined to hear PA case seeking to throw out millions of ballots. “I think they should have taken it. There’s enormous division in the country & the court owes it to the American people to ensure the election complies with the constitution”
You contend that these are legal questions, yet disregard if prevailing legal opinion already exists to answer these questions. You still haven't addressed why you feel that USSC in your mind has to reiterate an already legally agreed upon opinion just to satisfy people who don't believe in American institutions (Judicial and electoral systems) and are acting like spoiled brats in seeking any possible venue to overturn a result that is not to their liking. How do you know that they won't keep demanding to overturn the election by other means when/if USSC rejects these claims? Law and Order is what should be paramount in handling of this - it is the main principle that ensures our democracy functions as intended - fairly and indiscriminately.
What legal standing does the AG of the state of TX have in another state's election laws or practices? What legal harm has been inflicted on the AG or state of Texas? And if the USSC takes this case, then what is to prevent them from having to hear *any* case filed by one state about the election laws and practices of another state. For example, the state of NY can file suit against the ID laws of MS. The state of California can file suit against the state of Alabama for closing voting locations. The stTe of Oregon can file suit against the state of Florida for denying voting rights to felons.
I'm not totally satisfied with them simply losing cases in lower courts. The USSC is the highest court in the land, with the power to overrule the legal opinions from lower courts. I want Trump's legal case to be forcefully rejected in that court, by justices he appointed to much Republican fanfare. Block as many paths for excuse-making as possible. I don't, and likely there will be some that will. Um, OK. Agreed.
Why not bring up other states that had major changes to their voting process due to the pandemic? Alabama did a lot of changes in regards to mail-in voting ease. I believe 35/50 states ended up with a lot of election rule changes... not just 4.
Sounds like you want the PR win for Dems but I don't understand for what purpose? It won't shut the rabid base up and Democrats don't get a stronger case to shut them up by saying "USSC rejected it directly" vs saying "USSC rejected them indirectly". There will always be an excuse/scapegoat/rationalizing
I think not only would it not, it would do the exact opposite. If the SC takes up on a case that has no merit, while it will shoot it down, the opinion isn't going to be so broad to send a message that politically motivated cases aren't welcome. Instead, it will send a message that politically motivated cases or meritless cases are welcome and will have their time in our Court. That can cause a flood gate of meritless cases in the hope that the SC would take up on them for a hail mary shot or more likely, just to litigation to delay, cost money for opponents to defend, cause public confusion, win political points, and so on. Basically, using lawsuits as a heckling or political tool because the SC will listen to them. We have seen the lower court unanimously opinion on these meritless election lawsuits haven't stop them from continuing. What might stop them is if the Courts said enough. We aren't going to entertain them. Here are some views from law folks: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/texas-tries-hail-mary-to-block-election-outcome/ The filing by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accuses government officials in the four states of using the COVID-19 pandemic to make changes to their states’ election laws through “executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.” The state officials, Paxton writes, “flooded” their states with absentee ballots and “weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote-signature verification and witness requirements.” As a result, Paxton contends, the 2020 election “suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in those four states” – for example, treating voters in Democratic areas more favorably than in other areas. When taken together, Paxton asserts, these flaws make it impossible to know who “legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.” ... Officials in the states being challenged described Texas’ filing as an outlandish stunt with no legal basis. “These continued attacks on our fair and free election system are beyond meritless, beyond reckless,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) wrote on Twitter. “I feel sorry for Texans that their tax dollars are being wasted on such a genuinely embarrassing lawsuit,” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) wrote. “Texas is as likely to challenge the outcome of the Ice Bowl as it is to overturn the will of Wisconsin voters in the 2020 presidential election.” Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr (R), who was recently named the new chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association, also brushed off the lawsuit. “With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” a spokesperson for Carr said, according to The Dallas Morning News. Texas files an audacious suit with the Supreme Court challenging the election results. - The New York Times (nytimes.com) ... Legal experts called the suit outlandish, and it comes at a time when Mr. Paxton is battling a scandal in his own state over whistle-blower allegations that he engaged in bribery and other wrongdoing to illegally help a wealthy Austin real estate developer and political donor. “It looks like we have a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category,” Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, wrote on Twitter. ... In a blog post, Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, called the Texas filing a “press release masquerading as a lawsuit.” He listed what he said were its shortcomings: “Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it’s too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).”
I don't disagree with your last sentence, but I think they do have a stronger case with an explicit, direct rejection from the USSC. It makes the excuse-making and rationalizing look all the more ridiculous. This is a good thing.
The only thing that would help, at least a little bit, is for the GOP leadership + most of their rank/file to come together, put on big adult pants, and declare that we inhabit reality and in that reality, sadly (for them), Joe Biden won the election without any sort of widespread voter fraud, as confirmed repeatedly by courts and state AGs, many or even most of whom have been republicans or appointed by republicans. The crazies would still be crazy, but a good number of GOP voters would say, "well ****, okay then. Let's start complaining about Biden." But this doesn't help Turtle and Cruz and company emotionally manipulate and retain the wrath of their faithful. They (wrongly) think they can manipulate and control it. The Franz von Papen strategy.
Don't you think it will be easier, politically, for Republicans to do exactly that, if they are essentially in agreement with a conservative Supreme Court? They can always say -- "Look, we exhausted every possible legal option we had, and even the Supreme Court ruled definitively that this election must stand, so time to move on."
Well, it's what I would advocate, yes. I think that's in the best interest of this country and its future, by far, but I guess... (shiver)... if I'm Ted Cruz and think I can run for POTUS in 2024, then I'll need the rabid Trump base ... or something.
