Was our S.C. delinquent in its duty to adjudicate the Texas 2020 election lawsuit?

[TheTexan]

https://t.me/SidneyPowell/328

https://t.me/SidneyPowell/330

Release the fundraising Kraken

[johnwk]

No, Texas had no standing.

When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices in those states, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)




See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)

"Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."


In addition, our Supreme Court has emphatically pointed out in the past. When acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

And in "McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 (1892), the Court explained that Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, “convey the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment. 146 U. S., at 27. A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question."



Also see Bush v. Gore in 2000, citing McPherson v. Blacker: "A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question." In the instant case a "significant departure", e.g., would be Pennsylvania’s passage of ACT 77 by its Legislature which failed to take the prescribed actions to amend the state constitution as needed before implementing it.

Finally, and with respect to the Robert’s Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:

“When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court.”


JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

[Sonny Tufts]

When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC)

Texas voters weren't disenfranchised at all. Their votes were counted to determine who Texas's electors would be, which is all they were entitled to.* Just as they have no right to vote for Pennsylvania's electors, they have no right to complain about how PA's electors were chosen.

None of the dicta you cited bears on the issue of Texas's standing. Moreover, the interdependence argument goes too far; it would permit one State to complain about another State's violation of any other constitutional provision, not just that dealing with presidential electors. For example, California could sue Texas alleging that some law on the latter's books violates Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, Press, or Free Exercise of Religion, or the Establishment Clause. Is that really what you want?

* Of course, their votes may not have been properly counted, since Texas Governor Abbott unilaterally opened the absentee voting period early in violation of state law, something pot-calling-the-kettle-black AG Ken Paxton somehow failed to mention in his suit.

[johnwk]

Texas voters weren't disenfranchised at all.

Thank you for your personal opinion, but THIS POST supplies the documentation your personal opinion is wrong.


JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to acts contrary to our Federal and state Constitutions, as it has done in this case, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

[johnwk]

Texas has no business in telling other states how to choose their electors.

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.


"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." ___ my emphasis.

JWK

When our federal judicial systemignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, andassents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door toanarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.

[TheTexan]

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.

Sure, and to the extent that the state legislature felt that the courts were not upholding the laws as they were written/intended, it is the responsibility of the legislature to step in and correct it. Which they didn't do. Which is in effect, tacit approval.

[Sonny Tufts]

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.

It's quite clear you know nothing about the law of standing. Neither Texas nor its voters were disenfranchised or otherwise harmed by some other State's conduct of its election, and your continued parroting of dicta from irrelevant cases won't change that fact.

Even if you assume that the PA electoral votes weren't chosen in accordance with the rules set down by its legislature and that this amounts to a violation of the Constitution analogous to a breach of contract, neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated how Texas or its voters were harmed or suffered any damage as a result of this alleged violation, especially in light of the fact that Biden would still have won if all of the mail-in ballots received after the statutory deadline had not been counted.

In essence, you and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch want SCOTUS to render an advisory opinion to govern future elections, not the one just held. But SCOTUS has refused to give advisory opinions ever since President Washington asked it to do so in 1793, and it shouldn't start now.

[johnwk]

It's quite clear you know nothing about the law of standing.

What is "clear" is, you simply love to make up crap . . .


With regard to my understanding of "standing" see my following post HERE

JWK

[TheCount]

But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep.

So why didn't Texas sue Texas?

Or... North Carolina?

[enhanced_deficit]

That's way so important to elect well-funded "conservative" politicians who identify as Republicans and ignore 'follow the money'.

For everyone who said we need Trump for a "conservative" SCOTUS....

[johnwk]

Sure, and to the extent that the state legislature felt that the courts were not upholding the laws as they were written/intended, it is the responsibility of the legislature to step in and correct it. Which they didn't do. Which is in effect, tacit approval.

So then we are probably in agreement to the following extent, that our constitutions, state and federal, are not being adhered to by those entrusted to support and defend them.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[TheTexan]

So then we are probably in agreement to the following extent, that our constitutions, state and federal, are not being adhered to by those entrusted to support and defend them.


JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Quite so.

[Swordsmyth]

Quite so.

Then the states are not providing a republican form of government and it is the duty of the Federal Government (including SCOTUS) to ensure that they do.

[TheTexan]

Then the states are not providing a republican form of government and it is the duty of the Federal Government (including SCOTUS) to ensure that they do.

That would be a fair statement to make for almost any other issue. But the issue of choosing electors is specifically called out in the constitution as the responsibility of the state legislatures. (Which I know you disagree with and you are entitled to your reasonable opinion)

In either case, it's a fool's errand to expect SCROTUS to uphold the constitution so what's the point.

[Sonny Tufts]

Then the states are not providing a republican form of government and it is the duty of the Federal Government (including SCOTUS) to ensure that they do.

Not quite. The meaning of the clause may have been to insure a State didn't become a monarchy and to protect the States against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. See https://constitution.findlaw.com/art...on18.html#f321

Would you really want the federal government, instead of local officials, to decide whether a State is abiding by its own laws? Suppose the PA Supreme Court hadn't extended the date for receiving mail-in ballots -- would you seriously want SCOTUS to be able to reverse the decision and rule the same way the PA Supreme Court actually did (i.e., that the extension was warranted by the PA constitution)?

In any event, SCOTUS held in 1849 that questions arising under the clause are political, not justiciable, and that that ''it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.'' Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 42 (1849).

[Swordsmyth]

Not quite. The meaning of the clause may have been to insure a State didn't become a monarchy and to protect the States against internal insurrection and foreign invasion. See https://constitution.findlaw.com/art...on18.html#f321

Would you really want the federal government, instead of local officials, to decide whether a State is abiding by its own laws? Suppose the PA Supreme Court hadn't extended the date for receiving mail-in ballots -- would you seriously want SCOTUS to be able to reverse the decision and rule the same way the PA Supreme Court actually did (i.e., that the extension was warranted by the PA constitution)?

In any event, SCOTUS held in 1849 that questions arising under the clause are political, not justiciable, and that that ''it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.'' Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 42 (1849).

A judicial, gubernatorial or bureaucratic dictatorship is no more republican than a monarchy.

And I want the feds to make sure any state in the union is abiding by its own laws and by its Constitution and the federal Constitution when it comes to federal elections that affect the rest of the states.

SCOTUS has already interfered in state election laws in the past and is no more likely to rule the wrong way than state courts.
And while not impossible it is much harder for them to rule that states must break their laws than to rule they must follow them.

Luther v. Borden is from the same era as the Dred Scott ruling and is just as bogus.

[Sonny Tufts]

SCOTUS has already interfered in state election laws in the past and is no more likely to rule the wrong way than state courts.
And while not impossible it is much harder for them to rule that states must break their laws than to rule they must follow them.

You missed the point. Who is to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of a State's law, its own Supreme Court or SCOTUS? If you say SCOTUS, then you have given it the sweeping power to determine local law in every State. We're not talking about SCOTUS ruling that the federal Constitution or a federal statute trumps a State's own law, but rather SCOTUS substituting its own judgment for that of the State's highest court on a point of state law.

I didn't realize you disliked federalism so much.

[Swordsmyth]

You missed the point. Who is to be the final arbiter of the interpretation of a State's law, its own Supreme Court or SCOTUS? If you say SCOTUS, then you have given it the sweeping power to determine local law in every State. We're not talking about SCOTUS ruling that the federal Constitution or a federal statute trumps a State's own law, but rather SCOTUS substituting its own judgment for that of the State's highest court on a point of state law.

I didn't realize you disliked federalism so much.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter on subjects that relate to the US Constitution.