It's a funny mistake, but to even take that argument as evidence is unnecessary. It's an argument about electoral prediction, like approval ratings, the economy, covid, and everything that is not related to the factual evidence that Trump received less electoral votes. In fact, Trump cannot even concede that he received less total votes ever.
Todd Ruger is being far too kind calling it a simple error this is such a pathetic joke...1 should not be allowed to bring forth this many baseless and frivolous lawsuits imagine going to a judge, and that’s your big piece of “evidence”...
This argument about whether the USSC should hear and give an opinion on any of this is a side show. These suits should've never even reached the level of the USSC. These cases are so unsubstantial on the face of it they never shouldn't even brought up and some of these "lawyers" should be disbarred over this. As I said with Paxton's suit. Nothing good can come from this. This would be a joke if not for the implications of these cases and how they are further eroding the trust in the norms and principles of this country while furthering the divide.
Interesting article on Trump. Not much has changed, that's for sure. The year Trump went astray: A former New York Military Academy classmate on the emergence of a self-promoter https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion...0200814-yxu5pcuesrfgpm2pwxonidesnm-story.html
Comrade johnson and comrade paul helping comrade putin achieve his goal of destroying American democracy...
Texas has the power to sue other states and vice versa because the Supreme Court can be a court of original jurisdiction per the US Constitution. Now we all know it's a meritless lawsuit and a big publicity stunt, but it won't even be taken up by SCOTUS because it has standing issues. Just saying Texas can directly file a lawsuit with SCOTUS - it's procedurally okay, and SCOTUS will just collectively role their eyes and not hear the dumb case.
don't think that ur a lawyer. here's how some lawyers are explaining why it is unconstitutional for Tx to do so [/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] I'm not a lawyer, but I've been studying con law for over a year now and I think you misunderstand me. You and I cannot file a lawsuit of original jurisdiction to have the Supreme Court hear it. Texas can sue other states directly via SCOTUS. It happens. But before even getting to the merits of this lawsuit (which is meritless), there are many reasons why it will be dismissed. I think the tweet is referring to why it would be unconstitutional and disastrous to rule in favor of Paxton, and that all those AGs should be ashamed of themselves. SCOTUS won't even hear the case. Mandatory original jurisdiction is only a doctrine subscribed by Alito and Thomas.
I'm talking procedurally. SCOTUS doesn't have to take it, but Texas is allowed to file it. It's one of a handful of OJ situations as opposed to them usually hearing appeals.
Thank you. Very succinct. I was replying to a post where someone wrote "this shouldn't have reached the level of SCOTUS" and was explaining that in the case of Texas AG Paxton's lawsuit, there is no leveling up via appeal. He sued directly. Now it's still a meritless and terribly flawed lawsuit that won't be taken up by the court, but just explaining that Texas can sue other states at SCOTUS.
Yes that is why they won't take it up. I think I made that same point in the other thread. Because it's a hodgepodge of failed legal arguments rejected by other courts, you can't just smash them together and think it'll work in a new lawsuit directly with SCOTUS. All I said was Texas can sue. It will fail even before dealing with the merits (which it has none), because it has many issues that most of the justice will decide not to take it. That said, Aliso and Thomas ALWAYS vote to hear original jurisdiction cases. So if past is a predictor, you'll get 2 justices who vote in favor of hearing the case.
Perhaps, but they also believe all OJ cases filed before the court are mandatory instead of discretionary. Thomas From Arizona v. California https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf "Today the Court denies Arizona leave to file a complaint against California. Although we have discretion to decline review in other kinds of cases, see 28 U. S. C. §§1254(1), 1257(a), we likely do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our original jurisdiction that arise between two or more States." In reading about all this, just came across con law scholar Dorf, who wrote an article on his blog explaining in much better detail what I've been trying to convey and more. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/12/te...ices,cases within its original jurisdiction."
