2020 Election - Supreme Court

December 10, 2020 |

Big Al writes: 

Texas has standing.  Article III, Section 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

They have standing in terms of jurisdiction, but I think it's a question whether they can show the *state of Texas* was harmed.  The Republican party in Texas may not like it, but that's different.  I don't know and you may be right - I'm just saying.

Stefan Jovanovich  writes: 

They could deny the Pennsylvania case as they just have because their jurisdiction is discretionary.  Here it is original.  That is my only point.   In order to reject the "case" as "moot", they have to accept it.  The extraordinary part of this lawfare has been the refusal of every trial court to hear any evidence at all; they have all ducked. What makes it difficult for the Supremos to follow the same tactic is (1) original jurisdiction and (2) it is a pure appellate case.  All the "evidence" is documentary - i.e. the rulings of the governors, Secretaries of States, Board of Election officials - and it is already on the record.  No injunctions or writs of mandamus required. No witnesses or depositions needed.  The risk for the Dems is the one that has always been there: the Supremos disqualify the Electors for those states and leave it up to the House to pick the next President.  That also allows them to duck in much the same way they did in Bush v. Gore. 

Michael Cook  writes: 

And in effect thus overturn the election result.

Does anyone seriously think Roberts will have a piece of that?…





Speak your mind


Resources & Links