I tip my hat to Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett - what are Leftists saying of them, now?

Stop saying dissenters. There was no dissent. There was a statement saying that the original jurisdiction should have prompted the court to allow Texas to file the case, but it was made pretty clear in this statement (not a dissent) that the point was minor because no further remedy would be granted to Texas. That is, the lawsuit would be filed, and dismissed. It got dismissed a bit earlier than that. To call this a dissent is to overstate the small dimension of this statement. In court decisions, words have consequences. Alito and Thomas called this a statement, not a dissent. Basically they are saying "we're fine with this; we'd have done it a bit differently, with the same result." This is a 9-0 decision.

 

I think you are right about my word usage, and it is a technical argument, but the argument I am offering hereis a sound representation of the point that they make. They are not saying they would ever have voted in favor of the remedy sought, but they believe it was improper to deny an opportunity to the plaintiffs to address this very question.

 

So I invite my fellow poster, of centrist persuasion, to share his feelings about the two-thirds of House Republicans, including their leader, signing on to this, "despicable attempt to steal the election." How much, "respect for the Constitution," do you suppose they have?

 

I never once considered any of them horrible. I would have preferred justices with a more expansive view of civil rights, but I expected they would interpret the law, as and Constitution, with integrity.

In the long run, I suspect Conservatives to have more disappointments than me. Time will tell.

 

Sure. Two of them thought so, while ALSO adding the "no further relief" part. Seven did not. For a case like this to be heard, they'd need 4 justices to vote for hearing it. It is interesting to notice that had 2 of the 3 Trump nominees joined Alito and Thomas the case would have been heard. But then, would have been dismissed anyway. It is interesting to notice that not even one, let alone two of the 3 Trump nominees joined Alito and Thomas. What a failure for Trump!!!

My take on this is that Alito and Thomas just made a procedural statement, but the Supreme Court as a whole wanted to put an end to this before the Monday meeting of the Electoral College. So, the other 7 didn't even want to hear the case, given its OBVIOUS constitutional flaw: "lacks standing under Article III of the Constitution." Had they heard the case, they would have dismissed it for the exact same reason, thus the "but would not grant other relief."

Also, do realize that this part, "all other pending motions are dismissed as moot" is the Court saying: "stop wasting our time with this BS. It's over."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

Now, of course, the Trump loyalists won't stop. Court filings are now a dead end, but they will try to disrupt the January 6th joint section of Congress to count the EC votes.

This attempt will be window dressing and show of support for Trump sycophants but will fail too. The effort actually has no viable path to succeed. Here is how it goes:

One House representative and one Senator object to the EC votes for the disputed states. The the two chambers separate and deliberate for two hours, and vote in simple majority, to accept or reject the objection.

Both chambers need to accept the objection for it to proceed. If both chambers reject it, the votes are counted and the session ends, with Biden becoming the official president-elect. If one chamber rejects it, but the other accepts it, the objection goes back to the governor of the contested state. If the governor then rejects the objection, the objection fails and the votes are counted.

So, the Democrat-controlled House will never accept the objection. The Senate likely won't either (I don't see Romney and Toomey voting for it; just these two dissenting is enough for the objection to fail; but likely Murkowski, Collins, and Cornyn will also vote against it) and that will be the end of it. But even in the unlikely possibility that the Senate accepts the objection, 3 of the 4 contested states have Democrats as governors and they'd reject the objection, so the worst case scenario is that the Georgia votes will be thrown out, but they are only 16, so Biden would still be elected with 290 votes.

That is, after today's Supreme Court decision, the Trump campaign is left with a round zero in terms of avenues to reverse the result of the election. It's over.

It won't stop them from continuing, because this whole thing is a fund-raising event.

 

None. They are a bunch of cowards and sycophants. They are a disgrace. They allowed the GOP to be destroyed, in favor of the POT (Party Of Trump).

 

Agree with all of the above, and thank-you for improving my post with the correction. I did not have the 'right' word at my fingertip, and made a sloppy but meaningful mistake.

 

Kavanaugh was the only one I was worried about here.

The SCOTUS is charged with the duty of upholding the tennents of the constitution. Not to the whims of the president who nominated them or the party that confirmed them.

I had confidence that though the institution is leaning right they would rule as they have.

 

It's been absolutely appalling to me how much power this former democrat turned republican can hold over the republican establishment.
The republican party is absolutely petrified of trump. Mind boggling.

 

I don't tip my head to the leftist democrat scum who smeared, slandered, demonized and dehumanized these Justices. They know who they are.

 

And no doubt your view is wide-spread in the community?

Making the hyper-partisan, blind-leading-the-blind*, adversarial, 2-party rabble aka as 'democracy' appear very unattractive to an outsider.

* I can show your world view on any substantive policy is wrong...

Anyone for a one-party meritocracy?

Or maybe your contempt/hatred for your fellow citizens is a very extremist, minority view after all.

 

And when Trump uses some, maybe most or even all of this money to fund his own legal defense we will see the first time when a pol defends his own corruption WITH his own corruption.

A new low, even for the Republicans

 

I still have grave doubts of them. This was not an ideological battle but a straight up constitutional one with an obvious outcome. For them to rule against it would have shown enormous ignorance that would have tainted them horribly. To congratulate them on this would be like congratulating a priest for not raping an alter boy. Certainly not raping an alter boy is a good thing but congratulating a priest for not raping the alter boy is actually an insult.
The jury is still out on them.

 

Trump never won a democratic election

 

Accused of sexually assaulting who? Ford could not name him in her lie detector test as her rapist and the other two admitted it was a lie so unless there is a 4th accuser that has not come foward then Kavanaugh is innocent.

Stop drinking the kool aid.

 

This is complete nonsense. A Republican will fill empty seats with conservatives and a Democrat will fill empty seats with liberals. Trump had no plans to take advantage of the Supreme Court. He is just doing what every president before him has done.

 

we finally found the limits to the evangelicals support of Trump...

 

I never expected anything on the matter of the 2020 election other than a ruling that was unanimous, but if I am being honest, this is just a minimum standard of integrity for the supreme court justices. What matters above that is how they protect civil liberties from government overreach. I think Gorsuch is a good Trump appointee on this matter, but I do not have much confidence in the other two

Just because they went with the obvious ruling in the 2020 election doesn't mean I suddenly have a boost of confidence in them on other matters that they will be ruling on.

 

I think you are confused. No one on the left challenges the integrity of any justice on the court.

No where would I, as a liberal, expect anyone who knows law, justice, and American values to side with Team Trump on the Texas lawsuit.

There is nothing 'conservative' about the Texas lawsuit. TRUE conservatives are all about states rights, and the lawsuit was the antithesis of any core conservative value. I expected NOTHING LESS than for all of the conservatives on the court, to vote against it, and moreover, the issue is not left or right issue whatsoever, the lawsuit is anti-democratic, so there is nothing there for anyone who values core American values, and that would include liberals as well.

Where Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett will differ with democrats are on 'textual' rulings, 'judicial philosophy' rulings, like the case where the truck driver had to leave his CAB in order to survive, since he was broken down, and he would have froze to death if he had stayed, so he left and was fired for leaving, but Gorsuch, being a textualist, ruled for the corporation. No liberal would have sided with the corporation when someone is faced with a choice, abandon or die., but a textualist wouldn't care about 'justice'. In my view, that's insane, because if being a judge isn't about justice, then what in holy hell is it about? Is not the symbol of jurisprudence the 'scales of JUSTICE'?

You want to argue 'law"? here's a principle for you, 'justice is the law' 'justice matters'. There is nothing in the constitution that dictates how SCOTUS judges are supposed to rule, what their judicial philosophy should be. Therefore, they can do whatever they want. There will be rulings in the future where they will part with liberals, such as the recent ruling regarding religious liberty versus public safety, and they ruled for religious liberty. They would side with any business that wouldn't serve a gay person. Liberals would be adamantly against such a ruling. If the right opportunity appears before the court, they will shoot down Roe v Wade, you can count on that one, despite the fact that it does not reflect the will of the people.

 

Actually, the point of the rejection was that plaintiffs went to the wrong court, they needed a court that could hear their proofs of standing. Again, the Supreme Court does not receive evidence but judges on procedures used and constitutionality of the law applied there is no innocent or guilty rendered by them but lawfully tried or unconstitutional law.

 

They got one very obvious decision right. Their next decision could be just as obviously wrong. Time will tell.

 

The issue is 'original jurisdiction'. Two justices, Alito & Thomas, are the only two justices on the court who have the view that, on matters of states suing states, which goes to Scotus owing to 'original jurisdiction', the court is compelled to hear the case. None of the other justices hold that view accept the constitution's writing on this at face value. So, they denied relief, but will allow their case to be argued ONLY because Alito & Thomas believe they are required to ( notice on the order the only two names on it are Alito and Thomas). In other words, if they want to send lawyer to yak away about whatever, they can, but they are not going to get squat out of the court for doing it. Effectively, it's a 9-0 ruling against the petitioners.

 

FYI, there is nothing in Trump's 'transactional attitude' which will have a bearing on a court's ruling, left or right. To assert that they didn't rule in favor of Trump because of his attitude, is a complete misunderstanding on how judges rule on cases.

 

There is no court they could possibly go to for the lawsuit. There is only one court that hears state vs state lawsuits, and that is SCOTUS, because in such cases SCOTUS is the court of 'original jurisdiction', and since they didn't have 'standing' there is no where else to go.

Moreover, 'standing' isn't about 'going to the right court' in this case, it means that, given that a lawsuit is about redress, and there is no injury to TX for how other states conduct their elections, there is no redress to be had, therefore, no standing.

 

Agreed, this one was a slam dunk, not about 'judicial philosophy'. A clear cut case of lack of standing, and the laches issue.