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

Jump to Last Post 1-1 of 1 discussions (13 posts)
  1. Santi Salinas profile image85
    Santi Salinasposted 4 weeks 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?

    1. Live to Learn profile image78
      Live to Learnposted 4 weeks 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.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 weeks 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

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks 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?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 weeks 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?

        2. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 4 weeks 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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 weeks 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.

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 4 weeks 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.

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 4 weeks 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

        3. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks 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...

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 4 weeks 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.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks 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.

        4. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Please explain how the states that Trump lost behaved unconstitutionally.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)