What is the Court’s rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
The Constitution.
Is that without the enforcement of the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees?
JWK
No, with.
I suspect some sort of insult was implied. 
Well, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”
Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:
"This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? 3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election. 4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different "
In fact, as outlined in the Texas Bill of Complaint, the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees were violated by State officials who embraced and condoned these violations.
JWK
Assert. No evidence. No standing.
Now if there was a suit internally to one of those states and there was evidence presented, your SCOTUS decisions might come into play. But there wasn’t.
Texas doesn’t get to start the dance in any other state.
1 Like
To the contrary. The fundamental constitutional requisites to establish standing are that the plaintiff(s) must have:
-
suffered some actual or threatened injury;
-
that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant(s); and
-
that the injury can be redressed by the Court.
The Texas Lawsuit meet the standing thresholds.
JWK
None of this happened.
Texas’ motion was a transparent political ploy in that it only targeted specific states where the voting went to Joe Biden, and if reversed would give the election to Donald Trump, even though the claim was based on the idea that “changes to the rules by non-elected non-legislators threatened the integrity of the federal election system”.
That we know the latter was NOT their motivation is the motion ignored every state where similar rules changes happened (including Texas itself!) where the vote either went to Donald Trump or else flipping the vote would not change the outcome of the election.
The Texas AG wanted to change the results of the election…he was NOT interested in fixing this “threat to the integrity of our federal election system” or he would have named ALL the states where this happened in the motion…INCLUDING his own state.
This is the same logic used when claiming that in certain states, the Presidential election was fraudulent, but none of the lower races where Republicans won were fraudulent.
Or that Dominion machines in counties Trump won weren’t switching votes.
Obvious…political…ploy.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t.
And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Please explain.
JWK
None of the criteria were met.
1 Like
You’re missing some elements.
Not only is it required that a plaintiff suffer an actual or threatened injury - that injury must also be concrete and particularized.
Particularized means an injury specific to them - not a vague injury that would be common to everyone - in this case, every state in the country.
2 Likes
How would the court redress it?
the Texas lawsuit did just that under the heading JURISDICTION AND VENUE
But, as already pointed out, the Supreme Court never explained why Texas does not have standing, nor did the Court explain why it asserted the Texas lawsuit did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections.
However, our Supreme Court has, in the past, emphatically pointed out, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, “convey the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question. "
Also See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) citing McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), “we explained that Art. II, §1, cl. 2, “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. Id., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.” (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring).
And so, we get back to the question: what is the Court’s rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
It did not. Texas voters are not injured by fraud happening in Pennsylvania.
Hence the SCOTUS ruling.
Thank you for your opinion, but it is just that. . . your opinion and not the opinion of the Court.
Now, exactly what has the Supreme Court stated with regard to this very issue?
Our Supreme Court has, in the past, emphatically pointed out, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, “convey the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question. "
Also See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) citing McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), "we explained that Art. II, §1, cl. 2, “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. Id., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring).
JWK
There can be no “unity” between today’s socialist and globalist revolutionaries who control the Democrat Party Leadership, and those who support a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!
I know, but its a stupid insult since nothing would become easier to understand if written in crayon.
1 Like
Supreme Court neglects its duty once again and refuses to hear Pennsylvania election case
.
Well, a majority on our Supreme Court has once again refused to perform its constitutionally assigned duty and Justice Thomas calls this negligence ‘Inexplicable’. See: Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is ‘Inexplicable’
Feb 22, 2021
”The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reject the review of two 2020 Pennsylvania presidential election cases Monday, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas believe they should have been given hearings.”
HERE IS A LINK to the Thomas dissent.
Thomas wrote:
"These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
And . . .
“One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,”
Thomas also wrote:
“An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.”
It is becoming more obvious as each day passes that a majority on our Supreme Court is intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion and rebellion by refusing to abide by and enforce the provisions of our Constitution, and it is replacing the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted with their personal views of social justice, fairness and reasonableness.
JWK
“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to acts contrary to our Federal and state Constitutions, as it has done in this case, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
JWK
