Supreme Court Decisions

[cherzeca]

Apparently when one state sues another state it automatically invokes the Supreme Court.  Very sneaky.  The link above indicates that the supreme court will hear this case.  Expect at least 10 states to join Texas in this case (whatever that means).

Are you suggesting that having the case docketed implies SCOTUS will hear the case?  I'm not a lawyer but everything I've read indicates this isn't true.  Mike Kelly's PA case was docketed before being denied today.  It seems some justices (Thomas, Alito) view state v state cases as mandatory, others do not.

There are some good Twitter feeds out there from experts, such as:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329901859688451
https://twitter.com/jadler1969
https://twitter.com/smmarotta
https://twitter.com/rickhasen

FWIW, one of the expert testimonials in this case involves a 1000% batshit crazy statistical analysis purporting to show there's a 1 in quadrillion chance Binden won the election. The math is so wrong it's hard to even know where to start.   Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of stats (or common sense) can see why.  Alas, fake news has a different take:

https://conservativeroom.com/world-respected-statistician-in-texas-lawsuit-claims-the-probability-of-biden-winning-election-was-one-in-a-quadrillion/

Contrary to this report, Dr. Cicchetti is not a respected statistician. 

Wow.

This election nonsense has really gotten out of hand:
https://twitter.com/donie/status/1336466675554791426

scotus docketing indicates that scotus wants a response by 12/10 3pm from the 4 states and will decide whether to proceed with the case...so that is hearing the case right there. scout's next move is to ask for briefing from 4 states, and reply briefing from Texas.  there is a separate thread on this where I said:

"until now, trump administration election challenges have been ineffectual, a sort of traveling minstrel show featuring Rudy and Sidney. this has now changed. Texas has filed an action with SCOTUS seeking to have the electoral college votes of Pa., Mich., Ga. and Wisc be appointed by the appropriate states legislatures, as opposed to those votes of EC voters certified by the secretaries of state based upon the election.

Texas alleges that the elections conducted in the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the US constitution, which provides that “state legislatures” shall prescribe voting procedures for potus election. Texas claims that those defendant states violated this US constitutional requirement when the states, acting other than through their respective legislatures, changed the electoral processes within the states. This is a claim of ultra vires elections in those states.

Under Bush v Gore, SCOTUS found that federal law (the Electors Clause) is implicated when states conduct elections in violation of their own state law….that even though the violation is of state law, since it implicates the validity of the potus election, SCOTUS was presented with a federal question that it had the jurisdiction and the obligation to decide.

Moreover, under the US constitution, SCOTUS has exclusive original jurisdiction involving a case by a state against one or more states.

So SCOTUS MUST decide whether the Texas motion states a claim for which SCOTUS can grant relief…and given the Bush v Gore precedent, I believe SCOTUS WILL have to decide the case on the merits.

the EC meets by federal statute 12/14/20. the potus inauguration by US constitution is 1/20/21. Texas is asking for straightforward relief…an order requiring that the defendant state legislatures appoint the EC voters in the respective states (this is the 18-19th century practice). of course, their votes for potus may be different than what would obtain if the current slates of EC votes vote in the EC as per election results."

[doc75]

Also, it looks like there are two active cases at the state level in Wisconsin and Arizona.  What is your opinion of the merits of these cases?

My opinion is that all of these cases are without merit.   This is based on 2 main observations:

1) All the expert legal opinion that I can find (e.g. on Twitter) is unequivocal.   I have not found one credible source suggesting that these are anything but frivolous.   

2) If there were actually meritorious cases here, then serious lawyers would be involved on behalf of Trump & co, and serious expert witnesses would readily step forward.  Instead we are seeing improperly filed cases, replete with errors, that are backed by false / misleading testimonial from a motley pool of "experts"/observers.   

I've read a bunch of the affidavits and expert statements that have been submitted as evidence.   I defy any rational/skeptical thinker to read through these and come back with an opinion other than "bullshit".    IMO, the whole thing is a manufactured scandal,  being maintained foremost as a grift and secondarily as an exercise in ego appeasement.   The grift is both monetary and political in nature.

A couple other thoughts:

- This is a great demonstration of how easily people can be defrauded.  Folks are surprisingly willing to suspend disbelief when presented with a false narrative that they badly *want* to be true.     I've always wondered who falls for the "Nigerian prince left you $100000" emails; or why some dudes can't foretell that the pretty lady is just after their money.   Here we have the same thing, but amplified by social media.  You not only get the email dangling $100000, but you see dozens of Tweets and Facebook posts from friends saying how they heard about someone who replied and got the money. 

- I'm curious what extent the "debate" on social media is being exacerbated by foreign actors.  I'm sure the troll farms are working overtime to stoke the fire.


 

[JRM]

Also, it looks like there are two active cases at the state level in Wisconsin and Arizona.  What is your opinion of the merits of these cases?

My opinion is that all of these cases are without merit.   This is based on 2 main observations:

1) All the expert legal opinion that I can find (e.g. on Twitter) is unequivocal.   I have not found one credible source suggesting that these are anything but frivolous.   

2) If there were actually meritorious cases here, then serious lawyers would be involved on behalf of Trump & co, and serious expert witnesses would readily step forward.  Instead we are seeing improperly filed cases, replete with errors, that are backed by false / misleading testimonial from a motley pool of "experts"/observers.   

I've read a bunch of the affidavits and expert statements that have been submitted as evidence.   I defy any rational/skeptical thinker to read through these and come back with an opinion other than "bullshit".    IMO, the whole thing is a manufactured scandal,  being maintained foremost as a grift and secondarily as an exercise in ego appeasement.   The grift is both monetary and political in nature.

A couple other thoughts:

- This is a great demonstration of how easily people can be defrauded.  Folks are surprisingly willing to suspend disbelief when presented with a false narrative that they badly *want* to be true.     I've always wondered who falls for the "Nigerian prince left you $100000" emails; or why some dudes can't foretell that the pretty lady is just after their money.   Here we have the same thing, but amplified by social media.  You not only get the email dangling $100000, but you see dozens of Tweets and Facebook posts from friends saying how they heard about someone who replied and got the money. 

- I'm curious what extent the "debate" on social media is being exacerbated by foreign actors.  I'm sure the troll farms are working overtime to stoke the fire.

Were the consent decrees issued by numerous states to change state election rules constitutional?

Apologies ahead of time if I'm not wording the question properly.

[Gregmal]

I actually kind of think you are right, in terms of how constitutional it is to just go changing rules in such wanton fashion, with respect to elections, as was done. However...to date, a surprising number of judges have ignored law, and sided with politicians with regard to the "pandemic" and its subsequent nonsense.

Bigger picture. Should the SC rule it was unconstitutional, scrapping all the mail in votes, changing the "perceived" outcome of the election....this is a death knell. It will forever taint the court as not only partisan, but full-blown, and probably 75% accurately, be responsible for disenfranchising a good number of legitimate voters. The mail in stuff is absurd and many of these folks are total pussies and scam artists. But there are legitimate folks who simply mailed in a ballot because they were told they could, when otherwise, they'd have had no issue showing up to the polls and voting. Scrapping their votes is wrong. This will incite great fury and rightful disdain from many average Americans, and could be a rallying cry against republicans for many years, with greater consequences than just Snorlax Joe in the WH for 4 years....

[ERICOPOLY]

Both players sat down at a plastic card table and one of them lost.  Once the loss was known, the loser said that the loss doesn't count because the game can only be played on wooden tables per the league rules.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed the case because it wasn't timely.

[rkbabang]

Both players sat down at a plastic card table and one of them lost.  Once the loss was known, the loser said that the loss doesn't count because the game can only be played on wooden tables per the league rules.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed the case because it wasn't timely.

You are of course correct.  One player was saying loudly and repeatedly that the plastic tables were going to be a disaster, yet he did sit down to play.

[doc75]

scotus docketing indicates that scotus wants a response by 12/10 3pm from the 4 states and will decide whether to proceed with the case...so that is hearing the case right there. scout's next move is to ask for briefing from 4 states, and reply briefing from Texas.  there is a separate thread on this where I said:

"until now, trump administration election challenges have been ineffectual, a sort of traveling minstrel show featuring Rudy and Sidney. this has now changed. Texas has filed an action with SCOTUS seeking to have the electoral college votes of Pa., Mich., Ga. and Wisc be appointed by the appropriate states legislatures, as opposed to those votes of EC voters certified by the secretaries of state based upon the election.

Texas alleges that the elections conducted in the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the US constitution, which provides that “state legislatures” shall prescribe voting procedures for potus election. Texas claims that those defendant states violated this US constitutional requirement when the states, acting other than through their respective legislatures, changed the electoral processes within the states. This is a claim of ultra vires elections in those states.

Under Bush v Gore, SCOTUS found that federal law (the Electors Clause) is implicated when states conduct elections in violation of their own state law….that even though the violation is of state law, since it implicates the validity of the potus election, SCOTUS was presented with a federal question that it had the jurisdiction and the obligation to decide.

Moreover, under the US constitution, SCOTUS has exclusive original jurisdiction involving a case by a state against one or more states.

So SCOTUS MUST decide whether the Texas motion states a claim for which SCOTUS can grant relief…and given the Bush v Gore precedent, I believe SCOTUS WILL have to decide the case on the merits.

the EC meets by federal statute 12/14/20. the potus inauguration by US constitution is 1/20/21. Texas is asking for straightforward relief…an order requiring that the defendant state legislatures appoint the EC voters in the respective states (this is the 18-19th century practice). of course, their votes for potus may be different than what would obtain if the current slates of EC votes vote in the EC as per election results."

Yes, thanks, I did see your thread.  By "hear the case" I meant decide on merits. My understanding is that docketing does not indicate the case will proceed to that point.

Questions

- The relief you suggest seems very far from "straightforward".  Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it involves disenfranchising millions of voters, and such relief has been forcefully denied by lower courts. So I'm wondering in what sense you are using the word straightforward?

- If SCOTUS deems it possible to grant relief, are they obligated to hear the case on merits?  I was under the impression that they are free to decline.

All other legal opinion I have read on this matter suggests that this TX case is even nuttier than the others that have been filed.  So I'm intrigued that you are taking the opposing view. 

[doc75]

I actually kind of think you are right, in terms of how constitutional it is to just go changing rules in such wanton fashion, with respect to elections, as was done. However...to date, a surprising number of judges have ignored law, and sided with politicians with regard to the "pandemic" and its subsequent nonsense.

Bigger picture. Should the SC rule it was unconstitutional, scrapping all the mail in votes, changing the "perceived" outcome of the election....this is a death knell. It will forever taint the court as not only partisan, but full-blown, and probably 75% accurately, be responsible for disenfranchising a good number of legitimate voters. The mail in stuff is absurd and many of these folks are total pussies and scam artists. But there are legitimate folks who simply mailed in a ballot because they were told they could, when otherwise, they'd have had no issue showing up to the polls and voting. Scrapping their votes is wrong. This will incite great fury and rightful disdain from many average Americans, and could be a rallying cry against republicans for many years, with greater consequences than just Snorlax Joe in the WH for 4 years....

People keep saying this.  I just don't get it.  You're suggesting that a large percentage of the mail in votes (at least a quarter) are a "scam", i.e. fraudulent?  If so then it shouldn't be too hard to find actual evidence.    But, despite lots of people looking very hard for such evidence, none has turned up.   Instead we hear only vague theories of "statistical anomalies". 

I would gladly vote by mail or online if I could do so --- simply for convenience, regardless of COVID.  I'm sure I'm not alone.   Throw COVID into the mix and it's a no-brainer for large swaths of people.   

Also:   Why do you put "pandemic" in quotes?   I understand that you think COVID is no big deal, but the situation is literally the definition of a pandemic. 

[doc75]

Were the consent decrees issued by numerous states to change state election rules constitutional?

Apologies ahead of time if I'm not wording the question properly.

I don't know enough about the interaction between state and federal law to comment intelligently on the constitutionality of the consent decrees.   But I frankly think that's immaterial at present, as constitutional challenges should have come before the election, not after.

[Gregmal]

I actually kind of think you are right, in terms of how constitutional it is to just go changing rules in such wanton fashion, with respect to elections, as was done. However...to date, a surprising number of judges have ignored law, and sided with politicians with regard to the "pandemic" and its subsequent nonsense.

Bigger picture. Should the SC rule it was unconstitutional, scrapping all the mail in votes, changing the "perceived" outcome of the election....this is a death knell. It will forever taint the court as not only partisan, but full-blown, and probably 75% accurately, be responsible for disenfranchising a good number of legitimate voters. The mail in stuff is absurd and many of these folks are total pussies and scam artists. But there are legitimate folks who simply mailed in a ballot because they were told they could, when otherwise, they'd have had no issue showing up to the polls and voting. Scrapping their votes is wrong. This will incite great fury and rightful disdain from many average Americans, and could be a rallying cry against republicans for many years, with greater consequences than just Snorlax Joe in the WH for 4 years....

People keep saying this.  I just don't get it.  You're suggesting that a large percentage of the mail in votes (at least a quarter) are a "scam", i.e. fraudulent?  If so then it shouldn't be too hard to find actual evidence.    But, despite lots of people looking very hard for such evidence, none has turned up.   Instead we hear only vague theories of "statistical anomalies". 

I would gladly vote by mail or online if I could do so --- simply for convenience, regardless of COVID.  I'm sure I'm not alone.   Throw COVID into the mix and it's a no-brainer for large swaths of people.   

Also:   Why do you put "pandemic" in quotes?   I understand that you think COVID is no big deal, but the situation is literally the definition of a pandemic.

What dont you get? Ive made clear my opinion, which I am entitled to, many times over the past year here. If you cant get off your ass and to a voting station, you shouldn't be able to vote. Only exceptions medical disability or on leave. Several states have exactly this type of rule/provision. Some just took it upon themselves to change it.

I believe there are likely huge % of people who did mail ins that would have otherwise went to the polls. But as for the lazy sacks of shit who wouldn't have, I have no issues with their votes not counting. There is no question, given the final figures, that a great number of people simply wouldn't have voted if they had to go to the polls....

And convenience? LOL please.....Oh Im so sorry to inconvenience you by asking you to show up to a polling station and exercise one of your civic duties! Please, excuse my outrageous request. Let me get you a paper ballot you can fill out on your couch! Are you kidding me. If you're too lazy to go to the polls, you shouldn't be able to vote.....Part of ones civic duty as an American is being inconvenienced sometimes. Sorry, paying taxes is inconvenient...jury duty...totally inconvenient. At one point in my life I'd have been losing in excess of $5,000 a day getting stuck with jury duty...slightly more than an "inconvenience"....Considering every election is hyped up as "the most important of our lives"...if you cant get off your ass, to hell with you.