Well said. This is exactly why I don’t think there will be any “civil war,” or anything close to it. I’m sure there will be some protests and even some gun-waving, but who or what are they going to shoot at? The question of “who’s responsible for Trump losing?” doesn’t have any clearly-defined answer. Is it Democrats in general? SCOTUS? Republican election officials? Dominion? Despite all their ominous talk of “civil war,” Trump supporters wouldn’t have a clue where to start. And they won’t even acknowledge that Trump HAS lost, because he keeps stringing them along with talk of yet another judicial deus ex machina. He’s like a cult leader who keeps predicting and rescheduling the apocalypse.
These lawyers sound like they took abaout a semester of law school, then went off to smoke PCP.
Yes, that’s what it says. Still needs to be enforced.
Article I does not say that apportionment happens only after the decennial census, that is in the legislation of the Reapportionment Act. And Amendment 14 doesn’t say anything about requiring a wait until the next census either.
I didn’t say anything about it invalidating the election. Nothing at all. I was talking about punishing a state for violating the 14th Amendment by stripping it of the appropriate number of representatives according to the number of (male over 21) citizens disenfranchised.
Not just the power, but the obligation.
Who you would have to turn to if Congress is not following their Constitutional obligation.
Which they would do if they did not follow Article 2 of Amendment 14
It is, I have the right to more representatives, according to the constitution.
Why would it not?
As you said, it is automatic. There is nothing in the 14th Amendment or in 2 U.S.C. 6 that lets them wait until the next census. The wording is specific that their apportionment is reduced.
I mean, that would be exactly my claim. Why would it not be? If I do the math, and find that my state should have 2 more representatives if the state that disenfranchised its voters were treated as the constitution demands it be treated, then my representation is affected.
Why not? Does the court have the power to tell congress what laws it can write and enforce? SCOTUS is the be all end all of interpreting the constitution.
Who else would have the power to tell congress to follow the constitution?
I don’t know that that decision is exactly relevant for precedent in this situation, and in any case, SCOTUS overrules district courts, does it not?
The question was actually whether you could sue Congress for not doing its job.
I don’t think it is clear that would be how it worked. Maybe if say, Nebraska was violating Article II then that would mean that there were now 433 members of the House instead of 435. Of course, that would make your state representation worth more, but I could see a ruling that this is meant to be punitive to the non-compliant states, not as a reward for the compliant.
Is there going to be any further news on this before Monday morning?
There could be. The could issue an opinion late tonight, or anytime of the weekend. Or Monday. Or Tuesday…
The could issue a short “denial” and submit a longer opinion later, but I would think they have the resources to get out a final opinion anytime they want.
Wasn’t sure if they worked weekends.
Their clerks certainly do, and I seem to recall weekend orders issued from time to time over the years when things were urgent.
A good and in this case very fitting answer to this ongoing would be:
A pile of fresh dung will do.
(Not mine, I think it was Karl Krauss, in German, ca. 1930, but I have not been able to find the precise quote. And I have searched!)
I wonder if they might wait until Monday just to minimize the amount of time for an even lamer case to be filed prior to the electors voting.
Looking at the SCOTUS website, they have the following:
The Court may announce opinions on Monday, December 14. The Court will not take the Bench. Opinions will be posted on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m.
(My bolding) It doesn’t mean they won’t do something sooner, or that it will be issued at that time. It’s full of wiggle room. Still, it’s a fair guess that Monday at 10:00 will be it.
Supreme Court rejects Texas and Trump’s bid to overturn election.
Wassamatter, Donnie? The Court you thought you had in your pocket is not in your pocket. Too bad, so sad!
Edit to add this is breaking news on CNN.
That’s a fair guess, but this would not be an “opinion” strictly speaking. Even if it has an extensive written explanation, it will be an order, ruling on the motion for leave to file a complaint.
It could still be released with the options, but it can also issue at any time, I think. Obviously rulings on urgent things like stays of execution can issue at any time, but I suspect they won’t do anything that seems extraordinary for this. So, probably Monday, song with any other orders issuing then.
ETA: Ha! I was going to say, or today, but I thought it was getting pretty late for that on the East coast.
Not a lawyer, doesn’t sound as scathing as I’d hoped.
Trump Twitter meltdown coming in 3 . . . 2 . . .
Are we finally done? This should be the last law suit standing.
Oh no, there is still more. I think PA plans to file a writ of cert on the one that was shot down earlier in the week. And one of Lin Wood’s lawsuits is on the SCOTUS docket I think.
But this was the big one, and I think SCOTUS was pretty clear where they will fall on future claims as well.
There are other state/federal cases. I expect suits to continue for years.
Brian
Ken Paxton can probably kiss that pardon goodbye. Donald doesn’t reward losers.