Why I don't think the Supreme Court will take up the Pennsylvania case

[StarfishSaver]

1. The Court takes very few cases that are appealed to it. They are NOT going to waste their time on this nothingburger.

2. Jurisdiction would have to be based on there being a constitutional question that needs to be resolved. As the trial court made clear, the plaintiffs failed to properly allege and definitely didn't present anything close to sufficient evidence that the defendant violated the Constitutional rights of the Trump campaign or the two voters who brought the suit.

3. Even if they wanted to find a Constitutional violation, that would create a very dangerous precedent that the Court would NOT want.

The plaintiffs are claiming their rights were violated because the counties where they voted didn't go out of their way to facilitate their ability to vote by notifying them if an opportunity to cure their faulty ballots while other counties did do that for their voters and that this warrants the votes of ALL other voters be thrown out.

If the Court were to find that that inconsistency was a violation of equal protection and/or due process, that would open the floodgates for minority and low-income voters to demand similar response to other inconsistencies in voting systems.

Fewer machines and longer lines in Philly than in the suburbs? FIX IT OR THROW OUT EVERYONE'S VOTE!

Different early voting hours in different counties in Florida? CHANGE IT OR THROW OUT EVERYONE'S VOTE!

The Court is NOT going there.

[hlthe2b]

1. I agree.

[Maru Kitteh]

2. There is simply NFW the Roberts court will pick this up.

The end.

[regnaD kciN]

13. To which, I reply...

Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
Neal Gorsuch
Brent Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett

Which of the above do you see ruling against Trump?

[Ms. Toad]

16. Gorsuch.

but it won't get that far.

They will just not grant cert.

[Thekaspervote]

41. If vote certification is not granted the states electoral votes are then Dropped from the 270

To win total, it changes nothing



https://verdict.justia.com/2020/09/30/no-republicans-cannot-throw-the-presidential-election-into-the-house-so-that-trump-wins

[Ms. Toad]

46. I wasn't answering that question, but OK.

That analysis misses the potential that the Supreme Court could intervene with the Scalia-backed opinion (recently favored by Kavanaugh, and likely two other justices) that state leglisatures have the final word, and are not bound by previously passed statutes or executive veto. If the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that way, there aren't two competing slates - there is the single slate affirmed to be the constitutionally authorized one bby the Supreme Court. The act of congress can't overrule the Supreme Court.

I don't think more than 2-3 of the justices are indifferent to their places history, or condemnation by their peers, to want to wade into that mess - especially since the will of the people is crystal clear by the vote - had the election been closer I would be more worried they would take the case. And if they took the case under those circumstances, I would not be surprised to see that reasoning win out. I just think it will be saved for another day, when the race is closer, and we have another autocratic wannabe.

I just hope that we figure out how to put more fail-safe measures in place so we never get here again.

[radius777]

64. I don't think we'll ever see such a ruling

even by far-right judges because it would effectively render presidential elections meaningless if legislatures could arbitrarily step in and overtake the process anytime they wanted.

I don't think Scalia (in Bush v Gore) or Kavanaugh in recent rulings view it that way - only that should an election have severe problems which can be proven in court, that cast doubt upon the results in a way that it is unable to be certified, then the power to select the electors falls back to the legislature.

[Ms. Toad]

66. I don't think Scalia did -

but I belive Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas do. I don't think they are bright enough to think through the consequences - or, in the alternative, that they are arrogant enough to believe that gerrymandering will always preserve Republican legislatres in critical states.

But I don't think we'll see it here, since there is virtually no chance it could change the outcome. So self-preservation of their judicial legacy will keep them from forfeiting the appearance of legal impartiality when there isn't anything to gain from it.

[treestar]

27. All of them if they don't want to look like idiots

And they are on for life - don't have to please Dump.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. They won't rule at all, because the court will refuse to hear the case. Nt

[spike jones]

56. Wasn't the SC decision in 2000 that the client, Bush, would be damaged if the recount continued?

That was a very arbitrary ruling about an election where someone is always “damaged” by the vote count. It could happen again. I think it just take for one lower court decision to be appealed to the SC.

BTW That was December 12, 2000 and I was shocked that the streets were not filled with irate citizens. I was out there from 1-20-2000 to 1-20-2009 for the election and other issues. Remember the war that is still happening? My mistake was to start writing letters to Obama instead of remaining in the street to demand action from him. The issues were still the same and are so today. When Biden is in office all of us need to take to the street to demand progressive action on the issues. It is not the time to stop being active, it is the time to start being more active.

[calimary]

59. I lean that way, too. It's the ROBERTS Court.

Because he's Chief Justice, it's HIS name on it, for all of history. Just the same as the Rehnquist Court (Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 1986-2005) was. And the Burger Court was (Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1969-1986). And the Warren Court was (Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1953-1969).

I think it's a pretty safe bet that John Roberts is NOT going to want HIS name attached to any bullshit effort to overturn a decisive vote of the people in a Presidential election.

[Maru Kitteh]

61. precisely

[Karadeniz]

3. Thanks for the lucid explanation!

[Turbineguy]

4. Trump assumes that his appointees

are as corrupt as he is. That is likely not the case. They don't need him. He can't get them impeached and kicked off the Court.

[exboyfil]

7. So what happens if he does start going after the Justices

he appointed for not bending to his will? It would be nice if he released the kompromat on the judges. I blackmailed Kennedy for you Kavanaugh.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Nothing will happen. Justices are appointed for life, so no matter what Trump does

or says, it won't make any difference to them. I doubt very much that Trump has enough dirt on any of them to have the slightest effect. He just appointed the judges the Federalist Society told him to appoint without knowing anything about them.

[regnaD kciN]

10. It doesn't matter if they "need" him or not...

...if they share the same guiding principles.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Guiding principles aren't the issue here

[ShazzieB]

35. Trump's "guiding principles" are as follows:

1. ME
2. Money for ME
3. Power for ME
4. ME
5. ME
6. ME
7. ME
Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I doubt the justices share those.

[LiberalArkie]

29. Agree

[RKP5637]

5. Agree! n/t

[stopdiggin]

6. great point

Is the court really interested in "fixing" our electoral process? History says they're more comfortable with letting things slide.

[Mr.Bill]

9. I wish they would say, in their refusal,

"If you think we are going to get involved in picking another President who really lost the election like we did in 2000, you've lost your fucking minds."

[KWR65]

11. SCOTUS Owes Trump Thier Conservative Majority.

They will take up any case he presents and award him the Presidential Election. They are corrupt conservatives. On January 20th. 2021 at 12:01 PM we will know if we still have a Constitutional Republic.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. They don't owe him anything. Once they have their lifetime appointments

they don't have to do a damn thing for him. Just ask Eisenhower's ghost about Earl Warren.

[KWR65]

21. You're Naive.

[StarfishSaver]

28. VO is not anything close to being naive

Last edited Mon Nov 23, 2020, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Just very knowledgeable, politically savvy, and not prone to flights of "We're DOOMED" hysteria

[TwilightZone]

40. And you give Trump too much credit.

They don't owe Trump shit. They're not even Trump's picks - they're the Federalist Society's.

The argument that they were only put in place to help Trump has always been ridiculous. They were put there to skew the court conservative for decades.

[Mr.Bill]

50. Exactly.

I doubt Trump even knew anything about any of them one week before he nominated them. That would have required reading. They are not there to keep Trump in office. They are there to make abortion illegal and to make it possible for anyone to buy any kind of gun they want.

[JI7]

65. Trump Appointed Judges have already ruled against him in cases

[ShazzieB]

37. I agree with VO.

Trump THINKS he owns the 3 justices he appointed, just because appointed them. That doesn't mean they see it that way

The ones I trust the least are actually Thomas and Alito. Barrett is still an unknown quantity, but Roberts, Gorsuch, and even Kavanaugh have all shown signs that they are capable of thinking for themselves. Also, Roberts definitely cares about his legacy as Chief Justice and isn't going to throw that away to save Trump's skeezy ass.

[Polybius]

62. Exactly

And David Souter too.

[Bev54]

24. They do not owe him anything besides there is now a

democrat now as president and they are not going to do anything that a dem can do as well.

[Thekaspervote]

38. Neil Katyal solicitor gen for President Obama says no, SCOTUS will not get involved

Why would they....Conservative as they maybe, it isn’t a kangaroo court!

[Demsrule86]

42. We will know tomorrow when PA is likely certified and Michigan and Arizona as well.

This post is very close to right wing talking points.

[EllieBC]

58. You're confusing strict constructionists with the megalomaniac

The justices he appointed are constructionist and conservatives. Trump actually isn’t that. He thinks he can wipe his ass with the constitution and change whatever he needs for himself.

And they owe him nothing. He can’t fire them.

[Cha]

12. Thank you, StarfishSaver!

[Ms. Toad]

14. Agreed,

Certainly the remedy of leveling down rather than leveling up is inappropriate.

I am a bit troubled by the Court's assertion that expanding the rights for some residents does not burden the rights of others. Expanding the voting hours, right to cure, drop off sites in predominantly white areas (expanding their rights) does burden - at least relatively speaking - burden the right to vote in predominantly minority areas, because state action does result in greater access to the polls in white areas communities relative to the access in minority communities.. Nice end run around the constitution if you can get away with it by selectively giving more rather than erecting barriers.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Unequal application of any law is not much defense.

so yeah, conditions cannot be made uniform. Hours, personnel, layouts, temperature, waiting time, weather conditions. It was a ridiculous argument.

[StarfishSaver]

20. If that were the case, Florida's entire system would be unconstitutional

Since every county sets its own rules and procedures, as do counties in many other states.

[rickyhall]

19. Maybe the Right Wing Five do want look like the Trump Toadies they are.

[sheshe2]

22. Thank you, I agree.

[Rice4VP]

23. What does he want to happen? For all 7 million

votes in Pennsylvania to be invalidated? And then what? They get deleted from the election? Biden would still win

There’s no fair remedy here. He’s basing this on TWO republicans claiming that their ballots were rejected. I bet that hundreds of Democrats had their ballot rejected

The court won’t take this case. It’s a waste of time and it won’t change the outcome of the election

[StarfishSaver]

25. And these are the same people who fought tooth and nail for states NOT to be required to inform

voters that their ballots were defective so they could cure them. But now that the state didn't notify a couple of voters, they want 7 million other voters to have their ballots thrown out.

This is Karening on steroids ...

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Not only that, the case was dismissed with prejudice

Deciphering legal sites this AM, that means it was a whole lot of hogwash and we won't look at it again.

[struggle4progress]

30. (1) They sued the wrong people. (2) Their remedy wasn't appropriate for their injury

(3) They had no evidence

Those are three gigantic errors, and there are many other problems with their suit

[StarfishSaver]

31. You pretty much boiled down a 37-page opinion into three sentenced

[struggle4progress]

44. There are other pesky little details, such as lack of standing and the fact

that their lawyer apparently wanted to argue earlier-withdrawn portions of their complaint, compounded by the awkward fact that most of their counsel ran away as quickly as they could

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. Bingo. There's no way in Hell such a dumb complaint

could have survived a 12(b)(6) motion. Seriously, Saul Goodman or My Cousin Vinnie could have done a better job - or, more likely, realized at the beginning that they had no case and told Trump and the GOPers, Nuh-uh, find some other idiot, I'm not touching this dumpster fire.

[sprinkleeninow]

45. Crazee Eddie sez: "Money talks, nobody walks!11"

I have no idea..

Mb bc 'better call saul'...

[grantcart]

53. 4) standing

[Major Nikon]

32. Who wouldn't want to take up a case about Zombie Chavez working with the CIA?

Think of all the fun they would have watching hours of videos of food trucks hauling in ballots cleverly disguised as pepperoni pizza?

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. They won't touch it because to do so would render SCOTUS impotent and irrelevant

The court has no enforcement mechanism, so if they ruled for Trump, things would devolve into a “you and what army?” Constitutional Crisis, as the Governors could tell the Supremes to Fuck Right Off, and appoint the Biden slates of electors anyway, per existing federal and state laws.

Once the slates are sent to congress, it becomes a separation of powers issue, as SCOTUS has absolutely no jurisdiction over internal congressional processes.

SCOTUS won’t touch this with a one thousand and ten foot pole.

[Thekaspervote]

36. Thx for posting!!

[tavernier]

43. Why on earth would they?

It would be like a high school principal taking up the case of a third grader smearing shit on the walls at the primary school across the street.

[JohnnyRingo]

47. It's John Roberts court.

I know little about his political leaning, but he won't let his court become a three ring circus for the likes of Rudy Guiliani. I'd find it hard to believe he puts a 5 foot Trump flag in the back of his truck and drives around blowing his horn.

He's been watching the past 4 years and he's nothing if not conservative, in the true sense. I'm sure he leans more to George Will than Sean Hannity.

[grantcart]

55. His main leaning is as an institutionalist

He doesn't want to undermine the Court's credibility

He also doesn't want to drag the court into minutiae

[zentrum]

48. Agree.

[CaptainTruth]

49. Agree 100%

Your analysis agrees with that of at least a dozen other legal experts I've seen. One main theme I keep hearing (in layman's terms) is that "no judge is going to expand the definition of 'standing' that far." I get it.

This is not going anywhere.

[OregonBlue]

51. I believe if they do it will be time for a national strike like this country has never seen before.

[Straw Man]

52. I could be wrong ...

... but I don't believe that the conservatives on the same court will squander the credibility of themselves and the highest court in the land by making a clearly unconstitutional and partisan decision just to cater to a lame duck President's temper tantrum, especially when they have no one to fear and no one to impress, being appointed for life.

Trump's error is in thinking everyone is a corrupt as he is. The justices in question may be ideologically repugnant, but I don't believe that they are as nakedly, unashamedly, and moronically corrupt as the current POTUS.

As I said, I could be wrong. We'll find out soon.

[StarfishSaver]

54. I don't think you're wrong

And considering numerous federal courts have thrown these cases out and the fervency and solidity of the district court rulings dismissing these claims, I sincerely doubt the Court would do an about face and rule in Trump's favor with neither the law nor the facts on its side

[crickets]

57. Thank you, StarfishSaver! Thanks also to all who added to the discussion. nt

[Azathoth]

60. I'm still not entirely sure what they're appealing

Granted I haven't fully read everything, but...

What they're saying has absolutely nothing to do with what's in their complaint.

What's in their complaint has nothing to do with the defendants they sued, and the bulk of it appears to reduce to a Trump-esque screed against mail-in voting plus whining that their chosen poll watchers weren't served complimentary cocktails. The relief they're requesting is patently absurd.

Now it sounds like what's in their appeal has nothing to do with what's in their complaint but rather their right to file an amended complaint.

It's the most batshit unfocused legal action I think anyone has ever seen.

[Blue Owl]

63. K&R