This has been baffling (and raising my blood pressure) since early the afternoon. I haven’t seen any thread on it yet so figured I’d bring it up to anyone who had missed it.
Short version, Texas feels that the battleground states who didn’t vote for Trump should be thrown out due to irregularities and fraud in the election, and that Texas has standing. Most people are (rightly) treating this as a statement, rather than an actual tactic. But . . . for shame. By the standards they’re using, I as a person could ask Texas votes to be thrown out because of irregularities in voting (with more proven issues!) because it hurts my representation in Washington.
Shortly after the election I recall some NPR commentator saying that the law suits that Trump was contemplating were really just press releases with filing fees. This one also fits that category.
Some think, “Why are triangles defending rectangles?”
Others think, “Why are blues fighting for the rights of oranges”
Still others wonder, “Why are even numbers defending odds, those bastards?”
The unifying thread, whether you can see it overtly or not, is corruption. When the Wicked Witch unleashed her flying monkeys, there had to be others—like the Morally Bankrupt Sorceress of the Northeast, considered unleashing her gliding gibbons.
Can I get the wind of the leader to push my sails?
If I don’t back up this idiot, what’s the fallout?
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when a state brings suit against another state. You, on the other hand, have to go through the federal court system.
Maybe Texas thinks the Supreme Court will just hand Trump a victory 5-4 or 6-3 once the issue is properly before them. Maybe they’re just doing this so they can later tell the Texan Republican base, “we did all we could, blame the Supreme Court not us”.
It’s almost certainly the latter. Even the AG of Texas isn’t dumb enough to not see the problems with “I don’t like the way other states ran their elections so I’m going to sue and ask SCOTUS to force those state to appoint electors the way my state wants them to be appointed”.
I feel like I have to stand up for my state here a bit and say that “Texas” does not feel this way. Our shitbag Attorney General, who’s under indictment for felon securities fraud and recently caught up in an entirely separate scandal trying to obstruct the investigation of one of his campaign donors, filed this suit. Notably our solicitor general, who normally would argue the state’s case before the Supreme Court, kept his name off the filing.
I don’t know why you say that. The Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, is the face of the lawsuit. Maybe you mean Solicitor General Hawkins. See also flurb’s commend directly above mine.
Could be. Folks like the Texas AG (elected politician) and Rep. Kelly in PA and others would be doing what they are doing so they don’t get punished by The Base in 2022 when he points to them and says “they failed me, they did not stand up for me”.
Which he may anyway because, losers, you failed, you were supposed to win.
This, among other reasons. Those other 40-some suits have a long path to get to the Supreme Court, and few of them have any chance. This suit skips all the lower courts and goes immediately to the Top.
Now, I have a legal-ish question: Appellate courts, SCOTUS included, can pick and choose which appeals they will hear. But in a case like this, where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction, do they have the option to choose if they will hear the case or not? Or do they have to hear the case (to the same extent, perhaps, that any trial court would)?
Another idea: Paxton is trying to suck up to Trump so he can get all his juicy pardons.
There’s jack Trump can do about the state securities charges, only the Federal ones. And pardons are admissions of guilt - if he’s pardoned for the Federal charges, wouldn’t that make the state ones near-certain wins, since they both relate to Servergy ?
I wasn’t sure if he’s charged with state or federal crimes. I’m actually more interested to know if the Supreme Court, acting as a trial court, must take the case.
Yes, they can decline an original jurisdiction case, and did so recently when Oklahoma and Nebraska tried to directly file a case claiming that Colorado’s marijuana law would have an impact on adjoining states.