Please note: The Supreme Court decision tonight was actually a UNANIMOUS smackdown

[StarfishSaver]

Thomas and Alito dissented ONLY to the decision that the Court did not have the authority to hear the case. But they also said they "but would not grant other relief."

In other words, Thomas and Alito suggested they would have taken the case and then ruled against the plaintiffs on the merits.

This was a major, unanimous smackdown of Trump and his cabal.

[Thekaspervote]

1. Thx for weighing starfish!! Happy dance 💃

[TwilightZone]

2. Leave it to Democrats to find defeat in a victory, even one this obvious and warranted.

Some apparently wanted the SC to punish Trump or whatever. Not their job, of course.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Some people are just never satisfied

Remember people throwing fits 4 days after the election because MSNBC hadn't called it? And then even though the Trump people have been getting bounced out of court right and left, they ring their hands with every case.

Today, several people on this board perseverated about how the Court would side with Trump, against all evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt those same people are busy trying to find the dark side of this fluffy cloud and will continue to insist that, sure, we've won every step of the way so far, but any day now that will all change and we're DOOMED!

[LiberalFighter]

28. At times I question if they are supporters or adversaries.

[CaptainTruth]

52. I feel your frustration. *sigh*

[cachukis]

50. The subtlety is the shade that makes us.

[Bluesaph]

3. What does, "no opinion" mean _(ツ)_/

Didn’t that little weasel Alito say he was nit giving no opinion in the rest?

[StarfishSaver]

4. They just said they were offering no opinion about any of the substance of the pleadings

But saying they'd grant no other relief pretty much says it all.

[elleng]

5. Supreme Court rejects Texas' effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop

Biden.
The court's ruling was essentially a unanimous rejection of the Texas claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday brushed aside the lawsuit filed by Texas that sought to overturn Joe Biden's election victory in four battleground states.

President Donald Trump called the case "the big one," and 126 of the 196 Republicans in the House urged the court to take it. But the justices acted quickly to turn it down.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in a brief unsigned opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said the court had no authority to refuse a case filed on its original docket, where one state files to sue another. But they said the would not have granted Texas any other relief and expressed no view on any of the issues raised in the lawsuit.

So the ruling was essentially a unanimous rejection of the Texas claims.

Supporters of the Trump campaign saw the Texas suit as their best hope for derailing a victory for Joe Biden before the actual presidential vote is cast by the Electoral College on Monday.

Never before had any state asked the court to do what Texas proposed, to nullify election results from other states. The lawsuit sought to delay the vote of presidential electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, arguing that voting procedures in those states violated their own state laws.'>>>

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-texas-effort-overturn-election-fatal-blow-trump-n1250883


155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of
complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

[StarfishSaver]

7. Yep!

That's my take, too.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

64. Actually, Alito and Thomas have a point.

What they are saying is that they would have heard the case, and then tossed it out.

[elleng]

65. Right, their long-standing policy, to hear/entertain cases brought against one state by another;

and on the merits of this one, NO MERIT.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

[Takket]

8. haha....... i read that and my wife said "what does that mean"?

and i said it means "7 said you can't even bring this case, and two said we think we should hear it, but you still lose anyway." LOL

[StarfishSaver]

11. Exactly!

In a nutshell ...

[ms liberty]

45. Short and succinct. n/t

[Laelth]

9. Yes. It was.

Democracy held and is ready to fight another day.



-Laelth

[VMA131Marine]

10. Even this is not quite right.

Texas wanted an injunction to stop the electors of the states they were suing from voting. That was to give them time to file a claim. Alito and Thomas said that they should have been allowed to file the claim, but there was no guarantee that it would have gotten past the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the meantime, they didn’t think enough of the pleading as it existed to grant the injunctive relief that was sought. That might be an indication they didn’t think much of the merits and the likelihood of prevailing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Exactly. There's a whole lot of whining about the Thomas and Alito "dissents,"

which weren't really dissents at all. Those two have previously expressed the opinion that in state vs. state cases, as to which which the Supreme Court has both original and exclusive jurisdiction (meaning that these cases can go directly to the Supreme Court without going through the usual layers of appeals and that the Supreme Court is the only court that can hear those cases), the court must hear those cases and can't dismiss them preliminarily without at least a hearing. The reason for their position is that because the Court has exclusive jurisdiction, there is no other court where a state-party can bring its case, so it would be unfair to deprive them of any shot at a hearing. It's not totally a stupid argument but it's never been accepted by a majority of the court.

But anyhow, what Alito and Thomas would have done is allow Texas to show up and explain why they think they have standing to complain about how other states conduct their elections, and then hear the other states' motions to dismiss, which they'd have won. Otherwise the result would be the same, and this was clearly a 9-0 decision. The two dissents, such as they were, were entirely procedural.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Interesting that the 3 justices Trump installed weren't willing to even consider the case

Somebody's gonna be tee-totally pissed tonight.

[Lonestarblue]

35. Good! I hope has a major stroke over it.

[DEbluedude]

13. Agreed. But wouldn't it have been a better for us if they heard the case and made a negative ruling?

In historical context, the distinct message that wont be heard is that these shitheads tried to overthrow a duly elected government. A negative SC ruling in this case would be one for the history books. As it is now, the labels attached to these seditious assholes will disappear in the next news cycle.

[StarfishSaver]

15. No.

By ruling that states can't sue other states over their election procedures they essentially issued the same ruling they'd have issued on the merits. And they didn't need to give that crap any more time or oxygen than it did.

The last thing the Court was going to do was legitimize this mess by giving Ted Cruz and the rest of the yahoos a chance to appear before them.

I think they handled this perfectly.

[DEbluedude]

19. Ok, I get it.

Basically, they threw it out on procedural ruling? BTW, I’m not a lawyer but the law interests me and I’ve always found your posts very informative. Thanks.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Exactly. It was thrown out on procedure - but the procedure failed because it completely lacked

any merit.

Thanks for the compliment!

[c-rational]

51. You are a DU treasure StarfishSaver. Thanks

PS - Have you ever heard the story of the little girl on the beach throwing starfish back into the sea and someone came along ans asked what she was doing and she told him. He replied she could not save them all, and she said well this one will appreciate what I am doing, and with that threw another into the sea. Along came a crowd and they were so impressed with her resolve everyone got involved and threw all the starfish back into the sea. The triumph of Spirit.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

24. It's not just "procedural" -- a state cannot supervise and second-guess another state's elections

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which grants Texas the power to nullify the elections held in Georgia. Texas has no power to insert itself between the citizens of another state and the government of that other state. It is not a party to any dispute between the voters of that state and the candidates on the ballot in that state. It can't manufacture a dispute to try to insert itself into that position.

[StarfishSaver]

25. Yes

They first tried to overturn results within the states through several lawsuits. When those all got shut down, they got Texas to try to revive litigation by suing them from the outside.

The Court said, "Get your sorry asses out of here."

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. Wish they would've used your words exactly. :)

This was a cynical attempt to do an end-run around all state and federal courts with the hope that the 3 rump-McConnell appointees would deliver.

[wnylib]

44. Didn't their refusal to hear the case also

serve as a deterrent for future nonsense cases between states? If they had agreed to hear it and then dismissed it, wouldn't that leave the door open to other states wasting the court's time on other frivolous inter state complaints?

[StarfishSaver]

54. Yes

[DEbluedude]

26. I get it.

It’s just the thought of this attempted coup happening again makes me wonder what it will actually take for the SC to hear a case that hinges on sedition. That’s the scary part.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

33. Not sure it's sedition. Might be rebellion.

18 U.S. Code § 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Note "force":

18 U.S. Code § 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Maybe some lawyers will chime in on here or the teevee machinery. I've seen "sedition" tossed around a lot, but have any legal experts spoken out about it?

[StarfishSaver]

34. It's not sedition

Sedition requires the use of force. That term is being thrown around a lot, but it's not being used correctly in this context.

[DEbluedude]

40. OK, but I think it does at least teeter on the edge of sedition.

[StarfishSaver]

46. It may be close, but when it comes to whether an actual crime was committed,

to use an old phrase, "close matters only in horseshoes and hand grenades."

[soldierant]

62. This may help (no extra charge for the smile)

From a wise friend: So, just so I understand what the Alito/Thomas blurb is about, SCOTUS is effectively saying “get the eff off my lawn” while Alito/Thomas are like “you’re welcome to ring the doorbell but no way are we opening the door to you weirdos?” EXACTLY 🔥— Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) December 11, 2020

[obamanut2012]

16. noooooooooooooooooo

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. I recall reading an opinion (don't remember whose it was) to the effect

that it would be better for the Supreme Court to hear the case and issue a blistering smackdown that would unequivocally drive a stake through that whole mess. I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, but on the other hand the summary disposal of the case tells us that the court thought it wasn't worth the reams of paper it was written on. They just scraped dog shit off their shoes. What they didn't say is as important as what they could have said.

[DEbluedude]

21. Your first sentence summed up my original thoughts perfectly.

[Mr.Bill]

31. I never posted it, but I thought that way.

I can live with what they did, though. Especially given the timing.

[sprinkleeninow]

42. Yah, granted, but this what seemed ?? to some of us, me included, was giving me/us the

'willies'.

[elleng]

18. They did, to the extent possible and relevant:

'Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections.'

[StarfishSaver]

22. The Court very skillfully shot down the merits in one succinct sentence about procedure

This was surely no accident. They probably a great deal of time and effort working on the wording of this order. It likely was circulated between chambers several times and went through many drafts.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. Yes, they handled it exactly as they should have.

By succinctly dismissing the case for lack of standing (depriving them of subject matter jurisdiction even though they had it in the first place) without getting into the other issues, they stayed out of the political aspects - and the court has always avoided getting involved in politics. They scraped the poo off their shoes and went back to their other cases.

[DeminPennswoods]

29. Alito and Thomas would only have allowed TX

to file the case since SCOTUS does have original jurisdiction on disputes between states. The order made clear that both justices would not have granted any other relief.

Really they dissented on an administrative issue. I'd speculate SCOTUS didn't allow the filing because of the electoral college vote coming on Monday and they would've have delayed their ruling beyond that day.

[StarfishSaver]

36. They didn't allow the filing because they have no jurisdiction to hear such a case

States have no right to sue other states over their election procedures.

[George II]

30. Yes, it was unanimous but for two distinct reasons. What's great is that trump's three appointees...

....unanimously ruled against him.

Parenthetically, I think Letitia James is licking her chops, just frothing at the mouth with the prospects of prosecuting trump and family.

[luvtheGWN]

47. Perhaps Trump has been doing all this fundraising

in order to go into exile with that pot of money.

As my mother used to say "Good riddance to bad rubbish"........

[StarfishSaver]

49. That pot of money is going straight to his creditors

And he'll STILL be deeply in debt - and going deeper every day.

His only hope was to hold on to the presidency which provided him a pretty effective shield.

[OneBlueSky]

57. Well said . . . credit where credit is due . . .

Trump's three appointees acted like real SCOTUS justices rather than Trump toadies . . . they didn't even join Alito and Thomas in their procedural dissent . . . for which they, too, deserve at least a modicum of credit . . . they would have heard the case, and then said "okay, we heard you . . . now you're outa here!" on the merits . . .

they may or may not realize it, but their actions Friday may well turn out to be the most important thing Trump's appointees ever do on the Supreme Court . . . they went against their sponsor and, in doing so, reinforced the most fundamental principle of our democracy . . .

Trump was urging them to "Save the USA!" -- and that's exactly what they did . . .

[spanone]

32. Absolutely K&R...!!!

[onenote]

37. Exactly what I predicted.

Alito and Thomas have been on record that the Court cannot simply refuse to hear state v state cases.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Yes. Their position is that the Court must allow original jurisdiction cases to be filed.

But they can rule that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring such an action after the case is filed.

[Cha]

39. OMG! I left for a couple of hours &

This Happened!

ken paxton & Thugs look More Stupid than EVER!

[NBachers]

41. Supreme Court: "Gitaddaheah!"

[birdographer]

43. I'm not on Twitter, but

has Donnie weighed in on this yet????

[BobTheSubgenius]

48. It went exactly the way I thought it would, and predicted.

A swift and abrupt rejection of a totally bogus case. Well within the first full day of (non) deliberations. Basically, SCOTUS unanimously said "Off is the exact direction in which we would like you fuck."

If it hadn't been for the comically inept string of cases over the last few weeks, this would have been
humiliating. That reaction has been dulled, I would think. Constant humiliation dulls the sense by which human beings take note of it.

[Blue Owl]

53. It was a LANDSLIDE, yo

[betsuni]

55. K&R

[oldsoftie]

56. My friends laughed when i told them "Barrett & Kavenaugh arent giving you an election"

This was BEFORE the election & they were all so sure that if there was a "problem" with the election, the scotus was going to take care of it. Alll part of trump's "grand plan"

HA

[BlueWavePsych]

58. Smackdown complete ;)

[malthaussen]

59. That was the expected outcome.

I'll disagree with the dissent. I don't see how one State can reasonably claim injury due to another State's voting regulations. If such were the case, California would be perfectly within its rights to claim damages from Texas for the latter restricting dropboxes to one per county. The plaintiff had no standing whatsoever.

-- Mal

[StarfishSaver]

60. The dissent agrees with you

But they felt that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to file their complaint - and THEN gotten kicked out for lacking standing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

61. They got too greedy. Only way he could win in the end was to ask

For ALL mail-ins thrown out. When in actuality, might have gotten relief if they had, say, questioned 1000 ballots and asked that just the thousand ballots got thrown out, for example. Or challenged mail ins when state legislatures approved their use not after the fact.

We probably really lucked out through this. Republicans approved their use not realizing Dingbat would tell constituents not to use.

[Dukkha]

63. I would love to be a fly on the wall

when T***p calls his justice appointees to throw a massive tantrum because they didn't "scratch his back" and do his bidding when he demanded loyalty in exchange for their appointees.