Conversation
Notices
-
Be cool if it actually ended up in something. I suspect another way to elevate hopes and then smash them
-
Actually, they didn't say that. They just reversed the 5th Ciruit's order. They didn't decide what Texas could or couldn't do. This is literally Scotus' order. It's merely a decision upon an application to vacate an injunction, which jurisdiction is always continuing until a final decision on the merits, assuming they grant cert on the underlying decision. If cert isn't granted, the injunction will apply.
-
Similar to how Texas tried to say the election wasn't fair because states changed their election laws illegally. SCOTUS claimed that Texas didn't have standing, and refused to even address it right?
-
I hope this goes to scotus and they decide that the political question doctrine applies and just let everyone do whatever the fuck they want. "We're out... good luck."
-
It already went there once, and they said basically Texas can't take steps to stop the invasion. Abbott said "yes huh", and here we are.
-
Political posturing is all it likely is even though there are clauses in the constitution for this very thing. It will take really drastic actions to stop this planned invasion
-
Yes. I can't recall if that was a standing or a political question decision. My mind isn't a sharp as it once was. In either case they won't address it.
My memory is that even if Texas had standing, they probably wouldn't be able to get past the political question doctrine because the constitution places the authority for counting delegates solely with congress. If that's the case, which I actually believe it is, election law passed by congress that govern its own internal processes, e.g. how votes are counted, cannot be litigated in any court.
Jonaschuzzlewit
🐘🐘 Humpleupagus 🐘🐘
KennyWhitePowers :White_powers:
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the