If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing it.

On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania.
If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no standing.
Irrespective of jurisdiction.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
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 <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: AFmailto: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 McCownmailto:ch...@go-mtc.com

                Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

                https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <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>  
<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: AFmailto: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  
<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 <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
            <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
        <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
        <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
    <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

Reply via email to