Supreme Court formally puts Texas lawsuit on its docket. Case will be heard.

[Goodheart]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election

Hope I'm wrong about this.

[bearsfootball516]

1. It's gonna get shut down real quick.

[Goodheart]

2. Meaning what?

[brooklynite]

24. Meaning something like this...

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

33. Nice!

[Fullduplexxx]

4. Why are they even taking it

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. They have to hear it. Lawsuits between states are under their original jurisdiction,

meaning that they are the trial court and not an appellate court that has the discretion to grant or deny review, as in most other cases.

[SheltieLover]

49. Ty for clarifying

[onenote]

56. They have discretion to dismiss the case without a hearing.

They don't have discretion not to docket it. But they don't really have that discretion with respect to any case that is filed with them in a procedurally proper fashion.

Docketing it means nothing from a substantive standpoint.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Yes, they can do that, in effect a summary judgment.

They just can't deny certiorari as with most cases. But it's correct to say that docketing means only that they accepted the filing.

[Fullduplexxx]

59. Thank you ...nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

60. Just be aware that "hearing" the case doesn't necessarily mean a full trial on the merits.

What I'm betting is that they will dismiss the case for lack of standing. That would still be hearing it because they would effectively be deciding it (by making it go away).

[Fullduplexxx]

61. Thankyou for explaining that ....nt

[Chainfire]

62. So, is that why it was couched in terms of Texas suing the other states?

I watched a lot of Perry Mason, but I am a plumber.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. Exactly.

There are a very few kinds of cases that can be taken directly to the Supreme Court without having to go through any other layers of appeals, and lawsuits between states (these are usually matters like border disputes or water pollution) are among them. The real reason, though, was probably because indicted Texas AG Paxton wants a pardon.

[PTWB]

3. That just means they filed the paperwork correctly.

[Goodheart]

5. Are you sure about that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. 100%

All it means is the case was properly filed.

[Fullduplexxx]

7. Texas has no standing to sue over other state's elections

[LiberalFighter]

29. Yep! How many states will want to get involved in Texas government? Hmm

[yardwork]

37. In fact, I doubt the paperwork is correct.

[yardwork]

52. Jesus take the wheel!

[PoliticAverse]

6. Good. n/t

[secondwind]

8. This is getting tiring... it's like playing whack-a-mole with the Supreme Court......

Cannot wait until that bastard is out of OUR HOUSE!!!!!!!!

[Wounded Bear]

16. Sports analogy. It's like watching the 4th quarter of a football game...

and the losing team somehow has 500 time outs.

[Kaleva]

34. Lol!

[yardwork]

38. That's a good analogy!

All but the diehard fans have lost interest and retired to the deck for more beer.

[ananda]

9. It says nothing about how they will rule.

Link to tweet

[Goodheart]

13. Who is Steve Vladeck? I hope he's right.

[SoCalNative]

19. More info

Stephen Vladeck is the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, where he specializes in national security law, especially with relation to the prosecution of war crimes.

[RockRaven]

28. Co-host of the National Security Law podcast (a sibling of the Lawfare podcast)

Also a law professor at U of Texas. Expert in war crime/terrorism type law.

Occasional contributing talking head on CNN.

[sweetloukillbot]

31. More importantly, why is OP citing an obvious right-wing source? nt

[LanternWaste]

50. You don't have to hope. You can research this one on your own.

The relevant and objective information of what 'docketing a case' means in regards to formal court proceedings is readily available via hundreds of various search engines. It's even been spelled out for you in this very thread to allow you assistance in your diligent, forthcoming research.

Or, you can simply continue to repeat "I hope he/she/they/you are right" over and over.

It's your dime.




"Literally..."

[True Blue American]

14. Chris Krebs sued the Trump campaign and Joe DeGenova.

[mia]

15. Here it is.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

[Drunken Irishman]

17. lol

[Wounded Bear]

18. They should put it first on their agenda...on Feb 1, 2021.

[Hokie]

20. Being docketed means it was filed or in other words nothing

Orly Taitz got a bunch of Birther bullshit cases docketed FFS.

[Stand and Fight]

21. Concerned, are ya? Thanks for that.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

27. ....

[Drunken Irishman]

35. So many Susan Collins here.

[obamanut2012]

43. yup

[obnoxiousdrunk]

44. O/P not getting

the answers he/she was looking for. Sad ....

[elleng]

22. You are correct, it's on the docket.

PA replied. 'Update (1006ET): The state of Pennsylvania has replied to the Texas lawsuit, arguing that it doesn't actually address Act 77 - a 2019 statute which allows voters to cast mail-in ballots for any reason.

Pennsylvania also argues that Texas doesn't articulate how 'massive disenfranchisement' of voters by tossing out the results of the election 'would accord with the Due Process Clause, which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules,' and that the case at hand wouldn't result in a 'circuit split' - when two or more different circuit courts of appeals might rule differently on the same legal issue (and is one of the factors the Supreme Court uses when deciding to take cases).

PA is also arguing that Texas, or anyone, has had since 2019 to object to Act 77, which violates the 'doctrine of laches.' . .

From the filing:
*This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Texas was able to approach the Supreme Court because Article III grants it status as the 'court of first impression' where it has original jurisdiction, such as when two states are in dispute, according to the report.

[Cha]

26. TY for that, Ellen.

[Deacon Blue]

23. Paxton is A Ass

I bet the petition was in Crayolas on a Big Chief tablet. What a party hack, in a state long run by one party’s hacks. Absent any competition or meaningful media coverage, they get lazy and stupid. And they get away with governance malpractice, benignly neglecting horrible abuses while figuring out what they will fuck up next. 30 years (and counting) of this Gooey Fresh Bullshit sure is getting old.

[arlyellowdog]

25. It's the type of case

It’s between states so it doesn’t have to go to lower courts. It takes a lot of gull to file this case. But, I was happy to see that members of the House spoke up after the 2016 election and other elections. It’s a reminder of how horrible we felt in 2016 and the joy in knowing how miserable the Trumpers must be.

[StarfishSaver]

32. A case being "docketed" doesn't mean anything. It just means that the filing was recorded.

It doesn't mean the case will be heard.

[Grins]

36. Lists 6 states. ALL 6 have solid GOP legislatures.

So much for Republican governance...

[obamanut2012]

39. Please quit posting doombait like this

You have literally no idea they will hear the case. It's only been docketed.

[MillenialDemLXXXIII]

42. +1 Obamanut2012

Also, this OP should be deleted as it is trafficking in demonstrably false information from a right-wing source no less.

[obamanut2012]

45. JFC I just saw it was Zero Hedge

[patricia92243]

40. Trump said we would be tired of winning. He is right. I'm tired

but exhilarated by winning. I just wish Trump would quit giving us so many opportunities to win.

[hlthe2b]

46. You ARE wrong. Nothing about docketing means it will be heard. See Vladeck on this

Once more for the people in the back:

#SCOTUS "docketing" a case (like Texas's preposterous new original suit against PA, GA, MI, and WI) is the Court saying "you have properly filed your suit," and nothing more.

Link to tweet

Further: See today's SCOTUS suit, which, though docketed, WAS NOT heard, but rather unceremoniously thrown out.

Link to tweet

[TwilightZone]

48. Find better sources.

Zero Hedge is a far-right site that has been black-listed by Google, PayPal, Facebook and many others.

Even Reddit banned them. You know how nutty one has to be to get banned on Reddit?

[walkingman]

53. Obviously nothing more than a political ploy to garner support from the nutjobs in Texas. Paxton

is a criminal himself but unless the people in Texas quit electing/re-electing these idiots this is what you get in Texas government.

[Codeine]

54. The fuck are you posting Zerohedge bullshit

around here for? Garbage source for garbage minds.

[onenote]

55. I wish people who don't understand SCOTUS procedure wouldn't act like they do.

Docketing is a ministerial act that does NOT mean that the Court will hear the case. While Texas et al are arguing that the Court has to hear the case, they acknowledge that the Court's precedents do not support that argument and that the Court would have to overturn decades of precedent to conclude that they lack the discretion to decide whether or not to hear the case. Only Thomas has argued that such precedent should be overturned, so its unlikely that there would be a majority to do so.

The OP should edit the subject of their post to remove the statement that the court will hear the case. Docketing the case doesn't mean that at all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. I'm betting that they'll dismiss the case for lack of standing,

which is "hearing" the case in the sense that they are making a decision. There will not be a full hearing on the merits because there aren't any merits.

[yellowcanine]

63. Doesn't mean the case will be heard.

[brooklynite]

65. Wrong about what?

Do you really imagine that the SC will intervene?