The Supreme Court Tossing Out the Texas Case To Oppose Biden's Victory

1. 78

   Santi Salinasposted 3 years ago

   It has been a month since the election results were set and stone. Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, were announced the winners of the 2020 presidential election. However, there have been many claims, especially from Trump and his supporters, about voter fraud in the election that actually stated that Trump won the election and Biden only won because of election misconduct from the Democrat party.
   
   Trump's legal team then filed a lawsuit against the elections committee stating that the fraudulent votes be tossed and only legal votes be counted, the legal votes being votes that were casted on election day. All other votes would be tossed. One court case seemed to have a promising outcome to it, the Texas lawsuit case against Biden's victory in the election. This became a substantial case because not only did the team claim to have evidence of voter fraud, but it had over 20 other states joining them in their lawsuit to ensure Trump's "victory" in the 2020 election. However, the Supreme Court tossed the case of the Trump legal team and would not pursue it any longer. This is a historic moment, not because of a voter fraud case being tossed by the Supreme Court, but the Justices who voted to toss the case.
   
   During his 4 years, Trump appointed 3 conservative justices to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This leaned the Supreme Court to lean more conservative than liberal and should have worked in Trump's favor, however, it did not. This is a sign that Trump's attempts at trying to secure the White House for another 4 years through various unconventional ways have failed and he should accept reality that he and VP Mike Pence have lost this election and will not set foot in the White House after January 20th.
   
   What are your thoughts on SCOTUS tossing the Texas Lawsuit?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It was tossed for procedural reasons. I get it.
      
      But, this is such a sticky problem. Voters feel disenfranchised. Any relief would be perceived as disenfranchising other voters. And there is no time for things to work through the lower courts with other approaches to find relief in the courts.
      
      I have no idea what the outcome might have been had everything been conducted legally everywhere.
      
      I hope that we find a way for future elections to have no heavy cloud of illegitimacy hanging over them as this one does.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Apparently the court declined to hear the case because Texas has no standing (another state's unconstitutional actions do not affect Texas?) and, maybe, because it was filed too late. 
         
         The issue, then, remains at large and undecided.  Can states ignore the Constitution in their method of setting election rules?  The court declined to rule on that.
         
         https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus … ction-suit

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Did you forget that some of the 50 failed lawsuits brought by those with legal standing addressed some of the same issues?

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               No.  Did you forget that SCOTUS nearly always hears cases that lower courts have already "decided"?  And that there is a very high percentage that are overturned?

               replyreport
         2. 60

            Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Yes.  I'd heard their response.  As a lay person I do believe that Texas had standing,  in a much as unconstitutional actions by one state adversely affected the outcome, thus harming the residents of Texas, who abided by the law.
            
            But I'm not a lawyer so that doesn't mean much.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Pretty much where I sit as well.  It looks more as if SCOTUS didn't want to upset the apple cart, didn't want to throw a monkey wrench into an election that is close to sitting a new President, and so found an excuse.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps SCOTUS was following the Constitution. It is a conservative court, after all, and the decision was 9-0 not to hear the case.
                  
                  They didn't want to upset the apple cart? That explanation is ridiculous.
                  
                  The case had no merit - as virtually every non-partisan legal mind in the country agreed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     Readmikenowposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually, that's not true.  It wasn't a 9-0 decision to not hear the case.
                     
                     "Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case -- without granting other relief, like issuing an injunction on electoral proceedings. They added that they expressed "no view on any other issue."
                     
                     https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus … ction-suit

                     replyreport
         3. 80

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It will be interesting to see what the 17 red states say and perhaps do at this point.  17 states or should I say 18 with Texas could have a lot to say about the Supreme Court's denial to hear the case.  Will they drop their claims or come back in a very big combined rallied push? 
            At this point, who knows...

            replyreport
            1. 86

               crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               At what point do rational people accept that there's no fraud, no proof of fraud, and no legal way to overturn a fair election in the United States?
               
               If Trump wants to overturn it, he should denounce Democracy, declare himself Supreme Ruler, declare martial law, and burn the Constitution.
               
               He's pretty much set fire to the Constitution already.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  First, you deflected from the subject of the conversation.    Then --- Your reading in too much to my comment. Note the word PERHAPS --- it adds context to my comment. And the word COULD that follows it to further context. And I sum it up with the words "will they"...  And the cherry on top of the pile of words that indicate the context  --- At this point, who knows...
                  
                  To answer your question -- At what point do rational people accept that there's no fraud, no proof of fraud, and no legal way to overturn a fair election in the United States?
                  
                  I have no idea at what point when or if many citizens will be accepting of your opinion that no fraud was committed.  Because there certainly was proof fraud was committed by many. Such as double voting, the dead voting, writing in information on ballots, voting without being registered, poll watcher not on site when counting continued...  I will ask a very simple question of you --- Do you feel what I have listed are not fraudulent acts? 
                  
                  IMO  there was a fraud committed, was it enough to overturn the election? I at this point don't care how little or how big the fraud. I am not willing to sweep these types of fraudulent acts under a carpet.   Keep in mind, many citizens may not be as willing to do that. Your logic  IMO is flawed.  It's like saying if someone robs a gas station, saying well he only did it once, and does it really matter? Why the hell do we have laws if we find it acceptable not to follow them. Or follow them when it suits us... Your logic so escapes me.

                  replyreport
         4. 86

            crankaliciousposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Please explain how the states that Trump lost behaved unconstitutionally.

            replyreport