General Discussion

elleng

(141,926 posts)

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

Reply to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 07:44 PM

Dec 2020

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please note: The Supreme Court decision tonight was actually a UNANIMOUS smackdown [View all] StarfishSaver Dec 2020 OP

Thx for weighing starfish!! Happy dance 💃 Thekaspervote Dec 2020 #1

Leave it to Democrats to find defeat in a victory, even one this obvious and warranted. TwilightZone Dec 2020 #2

Some people are just never satisfied StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #6

At times I question if they are supporters or adversaries. LiberalFighter Dec 2020 #28

I feel your frustration. *sigh* CaptainTruth Dec 2020 #52

The subtlety is the shade that makes us. cachukis Dec 2020 #50

What does, "no opinion" mean _(ツ)_/ Bluesaph Dec 2020 #3

They just said they were offering no opinion about any of the substance of the pleadings StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #4

Supreme Court rejects Texas' effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop elleng Dec 2020 #5

Yep! StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #7

Actually, Alito and Thomas have a point. Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2020 #64

Right, their long-standing policy, to hear/entertain cases brought against one state by another; elleng Dec 2020 #65

haha....... i read that and my wife said "what does that mean"? Takket Dec 2020 #8

Exactly! StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #11

Short and succinct. n/t ms liberty Dec 2020 #45

Yes. It was. Laelth Dec 2020 #9

Even this is not quite right. VMA131Marine Dec 2020 #10

Exactly. There's a whole lot of whining about the Thomas and Alito "dissents," The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #12

Interesting that the 3 justices Trump installed weren't willing to even consider the case StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #14

Good! I hope has a major stroke over it. Lonestarblue Dec 2020 #35

Agreed. But wouldn't it have been a better for us if they heard the case and made a negative ruling? DEbluedude Dec 2020 #13

No. StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #15

Ok, I get it. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #19

Exactly. It was thrown out on procedure - but the procedure failed because it completely lacked StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #20

You are a DU treasure StarfishSaver. Thanks c-rational Dec 2020 #51

It's not just "procedural" -- a state cannot supervise and second-guess another state's elections Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2020 #24

Yes StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #25

Wish they would've used your words exactly. :) Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2020 #27

Didn't their refusal to hear the case also wnylib Dec 2020 #44

Yes StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #54

I get it. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #26

Not sure it's sedition. Might be rebellion. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2020 #33

It's not sedition StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #34

OK, but I think it does at least teeter on the edge of sedition. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #40

It may be close, but when it comes to whether an actual crime was committed, StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #46

This may help (no extra charge for the smile) soldierant Dec 2020 #62

noooooooooooooooooo obamanut2012 Dec 2020 #16

I recall reading an opinion (don't remember whose it was) to the effect The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #17

Your first sentence summed up my original thoughts perfectly. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #21

I never posted it, but I thought that way. Mr.Bill Dec 2020 #31

Yah, granted, but this what seemed ?? to some of us, me included, was giving me/us the sprinkleeninow Dec 2020 #42

They did, to the extent possible and relevant: elleng Dec 2020 #18

The Court very skillfully shot down the merits in one succinct sentence about procedure StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #22

Yes, they handled it exactly as they should have. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #23

Alito and Thomas would only have allowed TX DeminPennswoods Dec 2020 #29

They didn't allow the filing because they have no jurisdiction to hear such a case StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #36

Yes, it was unanimous but for two distinct reasons. What's great is that trump's three appointees... George II Dec 2020 #30

Perhaps Trump has been doing all this fundraising luvtheGWN Dec 2020 #47

That pot of money is going straight to his creditors StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #49

Well said . . . credit where credit is due . . . OneBlueSky Dec 2020 #57

Absolutely K&R...!!! spanone Dec 2020 #32

Exactly what I predicted. onenote Dec 2020 #37

Yes. Their position is that the Court must allow original jurisdiction cases to be filed. StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #38

OMG! I left for a couple of hours & Cha Dec 2020 #39

Supreme Court: "Gitaddaheah!" NBachers Dec 2020 #41

I'm not on Twitter, but birdographer Dec 2020 #43

It went exactly the way I thought it would, and predicted. BobTheSubgenius Dec 2020 #48

It was a LANDSLIDE, yo Blue Owl Dec 2020 #53

K&R betsuni Dec 2020 #55

My friends laughed when i told them "Barrett & Kavenaugh arent giving you an election" oldsoftie Dec 2020 #56

Smackdown complete ;) BlueWavePsych Dec 2020 #58

That was the expected outcome. malthaussen Dec 2020 #59

The dissent agrees with you StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #60

They got too greedy. Only way he could win in the end was to ask Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2020 #61

I would love to be a fly on the wall Dukkha Dec 2020 #63