SCOTUS CAVES: Only Alito & Thomas Held Fast

@awildgoose

“The Left can afford to break the law with impunity because they have built an entire support system”

Right. I was telling my sister that I was a bit unfair with the right in my first comment here because of that.

However, only a bit. What was the Right doing while the Left was building this support system? Making money? Chilling and living life? Drooling about “muh Constitution”?

The Left helps and protect each other. We are like “I got mine, you get yours”, “proud of my American individualism”. They are a well greased army. We are the army of Pancho Villa: everyone by his own.

The Left insists. Argentine rejected abortion last year and yesterday it was approved by the Argentinian Congress. After Trump victory in 2016, the Left started rioting, sabotaging Trump presidency in each level possible and comitting every kind of fraud possible. They did not give up.

Each time we lose a battle, we go home. “We played by the rules, we fought the good fight, we lost with dignity like the gentlemen we are. We followed the rules that our enemies created to control us. Time to drop the cause and move on”. Beautiful losers, that’s what we are.

The SCOTUS is yet more debris that has been removed from the path of Trump to The Rubicon

He is headed there and he will declare a state of insurrection exists and ABS is as sure of that as Kavanaugh is sure of his loves of beer

Is is too much to hope that Trump rides out from the linebacker’s vegetable garden from behind the White House riding a white horse as he declares martial law and announces the arrest of William Barr on the perfectly reasonable grounds that he looks too much like Brett Baier

ABS: You can hope all you want. There was a song about that and the outcome.

Oh, one bright side to the election: The Turnip in the Basement IS WAY MORE POPULAR than Obama ever was, won more votes than any other candidate ever, etc. Obama is a loooooosssseeeerrr. Go Biden, kicking Obama to the curb for all of America.

It’s too late. The time was before the election.”

Yes, for the Right is always too late. For the Left is never late. This is why there were four years with the Russian collusion.

It’s too late. Let’s go home. We fought the good fight. We lost with dignity. Time to move on. Let’s be beautiful losers. Honey, make me another sandwich…

Then we wonder why the Left always win and we have a hole in our asses because our asses have been gotent kicked so many times

The grey people huddled in the dark in their mud hovels, awaiting certain doom, listening to the sound of drums and screams in the night, powerless, fearful, but accepting their lot, for there was no other choice. The standards of decency had evolved. The dogs were at the door. It was too late to do anything about it, if, in truth, anything could ever have been done.

Don’t forget that the next next President is Kamala Harris, and it won’t be in 4 years time…

Something that occurred to me the other day. We’re all aware of how the right is fond of talking about how “this isn’t the hill to die on” and so gradually forfeits everything.

But I had never really thought about how left never has the same sentiment. If someone on their side has a really crazy goal they’ll generally say “we’ll do that, but how about we focus on this other stuff first.” (Though even that is changing with the widespread leftist support of ideas like the green new deal, “defund the police”, or permanent lockdowns). But when an issue comes to a vote, they fight for it, no matter how crazy it is.

I wonder how much of their willingness to do this is from the fact that they know that there is no risk of them dying on the proverbial hill, since Republicans aren’t going to fight them for it.

I’m especially wondering in light of how restrictions on religious services have went in MN and other states. We had various conservative voices saying “if we violate the restrictions they might take greater actions against churches, it’s just for a little while, there is some good for health in it, this isn’t the hill to die on.” And at first most churches followed that advice. But generally when they have fought back they have won, even if it took a little longer in some areas.

Jerry, I totally agree with your lack of respect for state legislatures, but, that’s the system our founders wrote into the Constitution. There were no nuances involved in the SCOTUS decision, it was a pretty swift and direct defense of our federalist system. The PA legislators who joined the Texas suit were in effect saying, “We failed to uphold our constitutional duty, so we are joining the Texans to sue ourselves.” Yeah, they are bunch of idiots.

“Actually, Alito and Thomas would only have let the case come to court. They specifically said they would not grant relief (or some such)”…” but what then do they mean by, “would not grant other relief”?”

Alito and Thomas just mean they wouldn’t grant any emergency injunctive relief sought (I’m not clear what injunctive relief was sought as I didn’t read through the entirety of the countless briefs submitted…but I think they may have wanted the court to actually enjoin the convening of the EC on Monday, or perhaps enjoin state certifications, but I believe the state certs were already done – challenging the certs was the point, and in some states official election contests can’t begin until after cert). And obviously, since this was just a procedural matter, they are not going to weigh in on how they might have ruled on the merits had the Court heard the case (I think in the case of those 2, we pretty much know). It only takes 4 to hear a case, so I can’t believe at least two of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch wouldn’t get on board with Alito and Thomas to at least hear the case and rule on the merits (I think Barret, being so new, is scared to be seen as doing Trump a favor for putting her on the court, so unless her vote was absolutely necessary, I’m not surprised she didn’t join them – and actually, she may have in truth, but since that would still make only 3, perhaps she just left her name off their dissenting statement for appearance’s sake). I think this is another case of Roberts shifting left and trying to maintain some notion of the court being “above politics” by just punting on the case with procedural BS. There are other pending cases originating in states that could still end up in the SCOTUS – so the TX case isn’t necessarily the end. Wisconsin Supreme Court is hearing a case today). And there are still procedural ways within Congress, even after EC convenes, to deny certification of EC vote.

To not even hear the case is really unconscionable under the circumstances. An original jurisdiction case, joined by nearly half the states, over 100 congressmen, the President, and even many state legislators from the states being sued. And the ridiculous reason “no cognizable interest.” Utterly absurd. If this were merely a matter of intra-state elections that affected no other states, that’d be true… but in the case of a national election carried out in 50 states for the only 2 nationally elected offices representing the entire USA, of course every state has a “cognizable interest” in making sure every other state holds its elections fairly under the Constitution so as not to dilute and disenfranchise their own citizens and states participating in the election. Effectively, massive fraud in 4 or 5 states has been allowed to disenfranchise over 70 million voters from a numerical majority of states (and counties – Biden won a record low number of counties for an alleged “winner”).

At bottom the entire thing has come down to a lack of will on the part of GOP in key states (and the fact that in the end the GOP establishment is not really behind Trump and would rather just get in bed with fellow establishment Dems). If the state legislatures and local leaders had gotten their act together and either done proper audits and signature matches, or simply asserted their state legislatures’ right to appoint their own electors under Article II in the face of irremediably tainted elections, the SCOTUS wouldn’t be needed at all. Too many milquetoast Republicans looking for SCOTUS to bail them out of doing their jobs.

Not sure if this has already been brought up, but doesn’t this completely clash against, for example, the court’s reliance on the commerce clause to uphold so many federal interventions in pretty much everything?

“By the fevered machinations of my porous brain, growing plants in your own backyard could affect interstate commerce, so alas, the feds can intervene!” sayeth The Court.

So trivial things of that type can “affect other states” enough to warrant such medling, but the election of our new despot…no, that doesn’t grant standing, of course not! SMH.

Dennis, thanks for that summary, it was very cognizable. Agree that Repubs were looking for Black-robed supremos to bail them out. Supers told them, “it’s not our mess to fix and we don’t have a magic wand”. Or maybe they said, “if you think we’re getting between the Overlords and their lunch you’re nuts.”

JH—What kind of a fool or whatever calls using the existing laws as bogus and lawless. Dam*, how dense does one have to be to make a statement like that????? And a uninamous decision against something by the Supremes is a sign of evil? For pity sake, READ SOME HISTORY OF THE COURT.
And what the “h” does the birther conspiracy have to do with this? Did you need a scarecrow for your garden so you built a strawman???? Gone full-on TDS insane, it seems. (nothing personal, of course)

imnobody00: I bet you’re one of those people that hit the brakes on the car AFTER you cleared the road and are in the air over the cliff because “it can’t hurt”. There is an order to reality. If we don’t want elections stolen, then we better do something BEFORE the election, or like you, we splat at the bottom of the cliff. Again, that’s why we LOSE. We wait to go over the cliff.

Cuckservatives are truly the most pitiful creatures on earth. But what makes them most pitiful isn’t their idiotic fealty to cucks like Roberts and Barrett, but because, as suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochists, they burn with unquenchable lust to be eternally and publicly gang raped by Paco, Jamal, Abdul, Wong, and Shekelstein as the ultimate form of virtue signaling. Pitiful. Just pitiful.

@jh ironic you cite a website calle Reason. There is enough evidence of wrong doing just prima facie to grant delays in the EC vote and hear the case.

But libertardians gonna be libertardians.

I have a question. Can someone explain how the people in Georgia on the after hours video have not been questioned for the crime of election fraud? It seems to me like no’one is responsible for detecting it except the candidate who was harmed?

Some compelling thoughts here but we seem to be – as always – complexifying the issue at hand.

The simple, plain view: Anyone who has eyes can see that the election has not a whiff of legitimacy. I really don’t give a hoot if every election beforehand was screwed in one way or another, at least they had the decency to try and hide it before.

This was a schoolyard in-your-face-what-you-gonna-do-about-it steal. There is no “do better next time” BS.

That’s the context of the SCOTUS “decision”. They fly off into la-la land determining reality is what each of us decides it is, but won’t get their hands dirty when someone walks into the store and robs it.

How about the Rule of Law, SCOTUS?

Has anyone been listening to Jerome Corsi’s SCOTUS arguments? He was going down his route (and advising the the President) before the Texas filing, and is continuing on after its failure. Seems there have been and continue to be other (perhaps better) paths through SCOTUS; FWIW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_T_qfs9fR8

Frank: Because the media and politicians and law enforcement in charge don’t care (nor do a good portion of establishment GOP). They just want a Trump out by any means. Plus, the people in the video are black, so there has already been pushback from media saying election frauds claims are actually just racist. Just as mainstream media gaslighted the Biden corruption info before the election, they are trying to gaslight election fraud, and even when evidence is in your face they just ignore it or call you racist for mentioning it. And SCOTUS (I’m sure Roberts, always so worried about image and appearance and “institutional integrity,” was the biggest influence on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barret), just punts because it doesn’t want the scrutiny or responsibility.

Sir, I must defer to your superior knowledge of statistics and offer no criticism of your analysis thereof.

Unfortunately, I am unable to similarly defer to your analysis of United States Constitutional law.

Standing is a threshold requirement for litigation in all courts. Our constitution is clear that the several states have equal standing in conducting their state elections, making it difficult for one state to say it has the ability to say it can have say-so in another state’s voting, given that all states are, constitutionally speaking, separate sovereigns.

Even Justice Alito said that standing did not exist in this case. His opinion, as published and patent to all who wish to read it, stated that the motion should have been accepted by the court, then dismissed for lack of standing. His only “beef” with the dismissal was that it was summarily dismissed for lack of standing prior to being docketed in the Supreme Court’s docket as a case, not that the case actually had standing. His argument arose from the fact that the Supreme Court has what is referred to as “original jurisdiction” as to disputes between the several states. That said, one state cannot tell another how to conduct its affairs under our constitution, which Alito acknowledges, when he says in his dissenting opinion that he would have dismissed the case, after docketing it.

I too am disappointed regarding the election, but our legal system needs to maintain the infrastructure that arose from the due process concepts created in the Magna Carta which later arrived upon our continent in the Mayflower.

That is a complete misreading of Alito’s statement, which Thomas joined. Here it is in it’s entirety: ” 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 therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue”.

Nowhere does he say it should be accepted and then still dismissed for lack of standing, which would be a contradiction. If there is no standing, the motion for leave would not be accepted in the first place (as it wasn’t), if it is accepted and Texas et. al. given leave to file, then there is standing. When Alito says he would “not grant other relief” he is saying he would grant no emergency injunctive relief while the case on the merits is pending, and he makes no judgment as to the merits given that this is a proedural matter; he is not saying “grant the motion for leave to file, because it needs to be ‘dockected as a case’ first, but then turn around and dismiss the same case for lack of standing” (Where and how did you contrive that absurd explanation?).

It is simply wrong to say that “one state cannot tell another how to conduct its affairs under our constitution,” or “the several states have equal standing in conducting their state elections, making it difficult for one state to say it has the ability to say it can have say-so in another state’s voting, given that all states are, constitutionally speaking, separate sovereigns.” Once the states agree to enter into a compact their “sovereignty” is limited to the extent of the terms of the contract (and isn’t funny how leftists are suddenly pretending to be advocates of states’ rights when it suits them!?) which specifically stipulates how President and Vice Presidents for the United State (the only two nationally elected offices) are to be elected. Every state has a legitimate interest – and thus “standing” – to ensure that the stipulated rules for selecting member of the electoral college under the Constitution are carried out properly and fairly, since impropriety and unfairness in one state necessarily affects the rest, and essentially nullifies their own votes.

In any case, this decision by the SCOTUS was purely political, and had nothing to do with any principled application of bogus “standing” arguments or alleged “state sovereignty” in conducting elections under the Constitutional rules for electing the President and VP. It has even less to do with your fanciful reference to the greatly overblown Magna Carta (which was and is a legal nullity – it was nullified by Pope Innocent III, shortly after it was entered into – and neither the hapless King John nor the barons who extracted his approval by force ever abided by its terms).

Furthermore, it is not about whether a state “can have say-so in another state’s voting.” States are not required to have elections at all to chose electors for President and VP. The Constitution grants state legislatures plenary authority to establish the “time, place, and manner” of the choosing of EC electors. The state legislatures could, if they wish, simply choose electors themselves every 4 years without having a popular election among the population at all. And the SCOTUS’ McPherson case of 1892 makes clear that that authority can be re-asserted at any time by the legislatures even in the face of other means having previously been established. This is the basis for saying state legislatures should, in light of evidence of mass fraud and impropriety, reassert that authority and choose electors that properly reflect the true will of the people instead of reflecting the will of the most corrupt and fraudulent.

This – legislative supremacy in establishing the time, place, and manner of choosing EC electors – was at the heart of the Texas suit. State election officials and state courts intervened to manipulate and arbitrarily change the “time, place, and manner” that had been established by the state legislatures. The PA Supreme Court, for example, arbitrarily decided, contrary to the plain meaning of the election statute adopted earlier this year, that ballots could be received up to 3 days after election day (and even without a post-mark to actually prove timely dispatch of receipt). Other states officials and courts arbitrarily failed to enforce rules on signature matching for absentee and mail in ballots, etc. Texas and other states clearly have a legitimate interest – standing – to enforce the Electors Clause of the Constitution, and not allow various busybody officials and state courts to arbitrarily manipulate that process in a few states to the detriment of all other states in choosing the President and VP.

Scotus didn’t cave they applied the constitution. Their decision is a 9-0 decision.

Alito and Thomas only agreed to hear the arguments, they had already taken their decision to deny the motion.

Sylvain is even more confused than Jonathan. It was presumptively 7-2 to deny the motion for leave to file a complaint (I say presumptively, because only two filed a dissent to the denial motion, but that does not mean however, that there could not actually have been three who wanted to grant the motion – 4 are needed to take the case. Denials of such motions, as with ordinary denials of cert, are not usually accompanied by explanations; so it could just mean that the 3rd simply decided not to join the public statement of Alito and Thomas).

A big part of the problem seems to be not understanding what a “motion for leave to file” actually means. Since the case was effectively dismissed on procedural grounds by denying that motion, the case was never decided on the merits (this was, of course, a purely political decision using a specious “standing” argument as the excuse to make it go away procedurally). Alito and Thomas wanted to grant the motion for leave to file. They had not, as you claim, “already taken their decision to deny the motion,” merely wanting to hear further arguments for or against the motion (Again for the slow and dense: Alito and Thomas wanted to grant the motion!). The arguments for or against the motion for leave to file were in the filings themselves, backed by numerous amicus filings in support of the motion. They would only have heard further “arguments” on the merits of the case itself had the motion been granted for leave to file been granted by at least 4 justices. You seem confused as to what the motion was about, and what the court actually decided.

Jerry, lawless SCOTUS?! Let’s abolish the Supreme Court, or give our President the power to fire them just like Trump fired his cabinet members, or whatever that would render the result you wish. Your choice.

Mike, Well, the analyses are rational to me as they fit my taste, one might say.

Hello Sheri,
So… in your opinion, the Texas AG didn’t really believe he would succeed in getting the SCOTUS to overturn the election results! Did I unknowingly attempt to refute an argument? (I admit I don’t read all the comments on blogs.) What exactly is the straw man argument? My point: my experience indicates that both Briggs and his enemies are subject to disinformation and misinformation. Of course, smart people like you never allow yourself to be influenced by the media.

When a justice is nominated by a Democrat president, you pretty much know what you’re getting. With those put on the court by Republican presidents, however, it’s hit or miss. First, there was Sandra Day O’Connor. Next, it was Anthony Kennedy, then David Souter (remember him?). Then it was John Roberts, and now . . . well, you get the picture. I’m not a statistician, but I’m sure Briggs can calculate the batting average of Republicans vs. Democrats over the past few decades when it comes to SCOTUS nominations. The Democrats are undoubtedly playing a much better game.

Frank: Because the Democrats are more blatant in imposing their non-negotiable political litmus tests on judicial nominees, and in general leftist judicial philosophy is more supportive of advocating activist use of the judiciary to achieve outcomes that cannot otherwise be achieved by political means through elected representatives in states or US Congress. Often times as well, the GOP has had the problem of getting nominees through Democrat controlled Senates, necessitating less politically clear and overt nominees, whereas Democrat Presidents have had to contend less with that obstacle (though Obama famously failed to clear it in 2016 with Garland; this is less a problem since end of filibuster for judicial nominees, but makes control of Senate even more important since filibuster can’t be used by the minority to torpedo a nominee; and over the last few decades, in line with its ever-growing outsized place within the American system, SCOTUS nominations in general have become more contentious. Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in 1986! Such unanimous bipartisan rubber-stamping of a nominee is unthinkable these days, though it should be common, and it shouldn’t much matter which 9 lawyers sit on the a Court, if the Court and its role were cut down to proper size and properly political questions were returned to the political realm rather than being decided and imposed by fiat by the Court). The left uses the judiciary as it’s chief means to subverting the true will of the people when it can’t get what it wants through persuasion at the ballot box, but the right and GOP still like to pretend the ideal judiciary is politically neutral, so they get burned on the end. Republicans always dance around the real issues and get into wink-and-nod arguments with nominees about stare-decisis when it comes to cases like Roe and imaginary “super-precedent” (and entirely bogus legal and constitutional concept).

Just look at how the media and Democrats acted towards Barrett when it was reported that she “may have” participated in protests at abortion clinics when in college: She was treated as if she had committed some unthinkable crime that should disqualify her as a judge, but but it’s taken for granted by the Democrats and media (redundant, I know), and weak establishment Republicans who don’t oppose them forcefully enough, that a former Planned Parenthood attorney like Ginsberg should be considered a perfectly acceptable nominee and not politically disqualified because of her record of left-wing activism.

Back when the GOP had control of the White House and both house of Congress under W Bush, they should have expanded the court to 13 and filled the vacancies with justices overtly committed to overturning Roe and other egregious precedent. Expanding and overtly politicizing the court would be exactly what’s needed to actually cut it down to size by reducing its legitimacy and outsized role in the US system. The Court is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of the federal government, but it is given entirely too much deference and authority (a problem that frankly goes back to Marbury v. Madison, but has become especially egregious since the Civil War and the invention of the doctrines of 14th Amendment incorporation and “substantive due process”). But the GOP and Bish were content to keep playing the Establishment game, and unwilling to take the radical action needed, and inevitably end up getting burned with many nominees (But, despite the egregious refusal to hear the Texas case, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are generally good – Gorsuch less so on some issues; and Barrett is still too fresh to form a clear view of her jurisprudence. I would not dismiss her as a lost cause already based on the Texas case not being taken-up; and as I explained above, it’s possible she or one of the others did want to take the Texas case despite not publicly joining the Alito-Thomas dissenting statement, and usually there is no explanatory statement at all from any justice when cert or leave to file is denied).

Dennis, thank you for that very informative reply. The bottom line is that it’s hard to win when you’re playing by the rules and your opponent is playing dirty and taking liberty with the rules of the game. Time for conservatives to become as shrewd as foxes but as innocent as doves, to paraphrase Christ.

“The bottom line is that it’s hard to win when you’re playing by the rules and your opponent is playing dirty and taking liberty with the rules of the game. ”

Yes, too often the GOP – especially in Congress – has been more concerned with appearances, collegiality, and so-called “norms” (which mostly just means playing by the enemies rules), instead of seeing politics for what it is – a zero sum game in which you must defeat your opponent or be defeated yourself. But the GOP has mostly just been liberals driving in the slow lane, failing to provide the fundamental opposition to progressive, left-liberal hegemony that we need.