merit would be decided in court " In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos reference dissent) 155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when the opportunity presented. On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS > refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff > has no standing. They said so, and that's it. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > 2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF <af@af.afmug.com> > wrote: > >> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari. >> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant >> cert”. >> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states. >> >> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not. Sounds like all >> of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not >> granted. >> >> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have >> allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste >> of time. >> >> So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision >> against Texas? >> The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v >> state case should get automatically heard. I guess that test failed from >> their perspective. >> >> I actually asked from a writ of cert once. Don’t fully recall the case. >> Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant us an >> en banc hearing so we appealed. >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Bill Prince >> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM >> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >> >> >> That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states have >> sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or >> below). The only time there is an issue is when there is some >> boundary-related issue that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't >> border any of the defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's >> the correct term is that Texas has no standing in this case. AKA pound sand. >> >> >> >> bp >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >> >> On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: >> >> There's a school of thought that since their jurisdiction is exclusive, >> the Supreme Court has an obligation to hear *any* case a state brings no >> matter how flawed it might be. Their feeling is that since there's no >> higher power to appeal to, that they *have *to hear the case so that it >> gets heard. Thomas and Alito are in that school of thought, and that's why >> they expressed the opinion they did. >> >> My reading of it is that the only disagreement was whether to tell Texas >> to go away before or after they're allowed to file their complaints. >> Either way, the court unanimously told Texas to pound sand. The only way >> this is unclear is if someone willfully interprets it that way. If someone >> is inclined it interpret it that way, then they would have been unhappy >> with any outcome. There was absolutely zero chance that the Supreme Court >> of the US would overturn one state's election at the behest of another. >> Especially based on the argument that "their election processes hurt us." >> If they did that, then similar suits would happen every 4 years henceforth. >> >> >> On 12/12/2020 10:31 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >> >> We need to have scotus do their damn job and get case law. If they keep >> punting for politics it will get stupid. This team when one snaps out you >> dont get some cross dresser popping through a crowd to bike lock someone >> and scurrying off, you get Oklahoma city. They need to shut the shit down >> or pay the cost of the product they purchased. >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:24 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Deep within this troll, the force runs. >>> >>> >>> >>> bp >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> On 12/12/2020 4:10 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>> Yes, thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don’t know what was more bizarre, that music video, or Chuck being the >>> one who sent it. Who knew. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince >>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM >>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> bp >>> >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>> Is there a mind blown emoji? >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF >>> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM >>> >>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>> >>> Cc: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com >>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>> >>> >>> >>> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Bill Prince >>> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM >>> >>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>> >>> >>> >>> First place I heard it was from Molly Wood on Make Me Smart: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en >>> >>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en> >>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> bp >>> >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/12/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>> I was not familiar with the term banana-pants. A Google search yields >>> >>> lots of results, mostly photos of banana pants, as well as some songs, >>> >>> none of which shed much light on the subject for me. I assume it >>> >>> means cra-cra? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Robert Andrews >>> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM >>> >>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>> >>> >>> >>> This was similar to how the south leaders hauled all the regular >>> >>> people into the civil war. Yes they did a good job stirring things up >>> >>> before. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/12/2020 11:19 AM, Bill Prince wrote: >>> >>> The people who should really be looking at this are the citizens in >>> >>> the states who think it's appropriate for their AG to sue another >>> >>> state's election results. >>> >>> >>> >>> The suit was what I would call banana-pants. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> bp >>> >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/11/2020 4:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >>> >>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> AF mailing list >>> >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> AF mailing list >>> >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
