Update: The Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election
“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November, ending any prospect that a brazen attempt to use the courts to reverse his defeat at the polls would succeed.
The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
The order, coupled with another one on Tuesday turning away a similar request from Pennsylvania Republicans, signaled that a conservative court with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump refused to be drawn into the extraordinary effort by the president and many prominent members of his party to deny his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his victory.
It was the latest and most significant setback for Mr. Trump in a litigation campaign that was rejected by courts at every turn.”
December 11, 2020
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
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.
What this means is that in the matter of Trump v The Constitution; The rule of law has won….
For the moment…
12/12/2020 @ 12:11 am
As much as I was intellectually convinced that Texas did not have the standing to file such a suit and equally convinced that John Roberts was not going to let that happen, I was still on edge about the eventual outcome of the case. I remain deeply concerned about what happens next. Donald Trump is going to be around. He may declare Mar-A-Lago the Florida White House and carry on as if he is still president after January 20th, issuing proclamations and executive orders. There are precedents for this in the Catholic Church during “The Western Schism” when three rival popes were issuing edicts against each other. Before you discount the precedent, remember that during this period in European history, the Catholic Church reigned supreme, so having three popes at once led to a severe breakdown in public confidence in the Church of Rome.
12/12/2020 @ 6:36 am
What I find most terrifying about this is not that the Trump would attempt it, because he as much as told us he would when appointing Amy Coney Barrett, or even that it ballooned out to mammoth size with all the Republicans jumping on. It’s that this week, five people on the Supreme Court stood between Democracy and Fascism in America, with nearly half the country hoping that we’d fall off the fence onto the Fascist side.
12/13/2020 @ 11:49 am
I have said repeatedly that the real danger of Trumpism lies in the potentially violent fervor of his followers and supporters…
12/13/2020 @ 12:01 pm
Ron, was reading about their march yesterday. Yes. Also terrifying.
In the beginning of Trump’s tenure, I attended several of the massive protests. At one, police formed a circle around a small group of about two dozen bedraggled looking men and shuffled them through the Boston Common, while we protestors were held at a distance by lines of police on bicycles, like they did yesterday in DC. At the time, the men were hardly threatening–no special outfits, no gigantic Trump flags, no organized chants. What a difference four years makes. Those Proud Boys are truly terrifying in their stated aim to hurt people.