Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 thereforegrant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
 
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 thereforegrant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Click to expand...

So they're saying there's a chance?

Bwahahahahaha!!
 
I think we just heard another door slam on Trump.

Nice to hear a jail cell close on him.

BTW, the decision was pretty damn terse.
 
acbytesla said:
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 thereforegrant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Click to expand...

So is Thomas saying that it should have been brought before the court, but the end result would have been the same?
 
rdaneel said:
So is Thomas saying that it should have been brought before the court, but the end result would have been the same?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a technical issue, thw two justices felt that Texas had a rigth to bring the suit,no matter how silly it is.
 
rdaneel said:
So is Thomas saying that it should have been brought before the court, but the end result would have been the same?
Click to expand...

Yep. Alito has always been a stickler about "original jurisdiction". This was one of the outcomes I predicted. I say "I" loosely since I mostly got it from the lawyer threads I've been reading.
 
Last edited:
SO, basically, the Court tells Trump to take a hike.
Not surprised.
I do nonto agrree with the politics of the SC court conservatives, and will give them hell on some of the decisions they make, but I don;t think they are evil facists.
 
dudalb said:
SO, basically, the Court tells Trump to take a hike.
Not surprised.
I do nonto agrree with the politics of the SC court conservatives, and will give them hell on some of the decisions they make, but I don;t think they are evil facists.
Click to expand...

You would have to be an idiot not to see the danger in overturning an election.
 
dudalb said:
SO, basically, the Court tells Trump to take a hike.
Not surprised.
I do nonto agrree with the politics of the SC court conservatives, and will give them hell on some of the decisions they make, but I don;t think they are evil facists.
Click to expand...

Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this.
 
Resume said:
**** them.
Click to expand...

Not really. Their response was expected.

This has been their position, that the SC HAS TO hear any case brought by a state against another.

As noted, they also noted that while they think the court has to hear the case, they wouldn't have provided any relief, meaning, yeah, we'll hear it because we have to but you are going to lose.
 
pgwenthold said:
Not really. Their response was expected.

This has been their position, that the SC HAS TO hear any case brought by a state against another.

As noted, they also noted that while they think the court has to hear the case, they wouldn't have provided any relief, meaning, yeah, we'll hear it because we have to but you are going to lose.
Click to expand...


That's exactly right. And once again, Thomas prefers to tag along with Alito and stay in the background, never voicing his own opinion.
 
acbytesla said:
Yep. Alito has always been a stickler about "original jurisdiction". This was one of the outcomes I predicted. I say "I" loosely since I mostly got it from the lawyer threads I've been reading.
Click to expand...

Yep. PopeHat and others called this. The only question what was Barrett going to do, and she went with the others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom