"The Supreme Court has rejected a longshot bid by Texas and other Republican-led states to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in last month’s election, dashing President Donald Trump’s last-ditch hope that the justices effectively hand him a second term. In a brief order Friday evening, the justices summarily refused the unusual case Texas filed Monday against four swing states whose voters favored Biden. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the court wrote in its unsigned order." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-led-effort-to-overturn-bidens-victory-444638 Just as I said it would.
@(original)late I haven't found any reference to how the Justices voted. It seems this removes credibility to the idea of stacking the court. Moi Meng Wanzhou 2+ years incarcerated in No trial!
Credible news source? What about the freaking official website of the Supreme Court of the United States? The decision was 9-0 with no dissent. Alito and Thomas issued a brief STATEMENT (not a dissent) saying that they would have at least allowed Texas to file, but without granting any other relief. Basically what Alito and Thomas said is that they'd have done it a bit differently but with the same result. If their opinion had prevailed, the lawsuit would have been filed, then dismissed. It got dismissed a bit earlier, with the same result. This was a 9-0 decision with no dissent, and just a minor point by two justices with a small disagreement, of no consequence. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf
<Reply to Deleted> why do you need a news source when the very Supreme Court official website is already giving you the answer to your question? But yes, there are plenty of news sources saying the same thing, if you insist. Here is one: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/ "Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case but said they would "not grant other relief." None of Trump's appointees indicated they saw any merit in the lawsuit." What is exactly your point? Do you have any doubt about whether or not the SCOTUS ruled the way it did, although the ruling is public and has been published by the SCOTUS on their official website, to which I linked? <Reply to Deleted>
While denying Meng Wanzhou a trial. Incarcerated in 2+ years. How long is going to wait on extradition? A life sentence of time? Is it worth the feud with China to the people? If you like, lets go to a more appropriate thread or you will probably have the last word here. Moi
The judges didn't vote. They just didn't accept the case saying that Texas has no standing. None of the courts want to get involved, and so they won't accept the case and let the witness' appear - even though they have signed testimonies and there are thousands of them. Derchowitz said that the courts don't want to get involved. I think the situation is very serious. There's another massive 'Stop the Steal' rally going on in Washington.
Yes, because the Constitution gives states the express obligation to hold elections. Texas has no standing in other states. SCOTUS isn't going to let the Liar-in-Chief steal the election by tossing it into the House. The rally today was small by DC standards. Your boy is loosing traction.
The only two justices who said they thought the case should be heard ALSO said there is no way in hell that they would change anything about the election based on anything in the lawsuit. The lawsuit was about how OTHER states run their elections. Guess what? STATES run their elections and other states have NO standing to challenge that. BUT, you are right about one thing: This situation IS serious. We have a president, congressmen, governors, and others who actually have elected office in America attacking our democracy. Our democracy!!! Frankly, that is treason.
No, they did vote on whether to hear the case. THAT was the issue. All but two voted no. The others voted yes, attaching a statement to their vote say that while they thought it should be heard, there is NO CHANCE they would change anything about this election that could be seen as based on the case being put forward. Trump and his treasonous scoundrals couldn't get their case into the SC. And, had THAT worked, his most ardant supporters on the court promised him defeat.
