Given the makeup of the Supreme Court after 3 conservative appointments to the court, I was concerned as to what the outcome of the Court’s decision might be. Whether they would agree with Texas and trump was the concern. The italicized sentence is basically the Court’s decision. The note from Alito and Thomas being an acceptance of the motion for review and not grant the petitioner relief. “The justices’ dissents, though, are considerably less significant than all that. As The Post’s Supreme Court guru Robert Barnes and many others noted, the dissents echoed the long-standing positions of the two justices, which is that the court’s “original jurisdiction” means it must accept such a case involving conflicts between states. Their dissents on
Topics:
run75441 considers the following as important: 2020 presidential election, Featured Stories, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes A Bit of History by a Friend from Slate’s “The Fray”
Angry Bear writes 2024 SOCIAL SECURITY REPORT IS OUT THE MEDIA MISS THE POINT
Angry Bear writes Republican U.S. States Sue EPA over Strict Power Plant Emission Rules
Angry Bear writes Clawback of money looted by Cerberus, de la Torre, and MPT from Steward Health Care
Given the makeup of the Supreme Court after 3 conservative appointments to the court, I was concerned as to what the outcome of the Court’s decision might be. Whether they would agree with Texas and trump was the concern.
The italicized sentence is basically the Court’s decision. The note from Alito and Thomas being an acceptance of the motion for review and not grant the petitioner relief.
“The justices’ dissents, though, are considerably less significant than all that.
As The Post’s Supreme Court guru Robert Barnes and many others noted, the dissents echoed the long-standing positions of the two justices, which is that the court’s “original jurisdiction” means it must accept such a case involving conflicts between states. Their dissents on that point, in fact, were merely a matter of course for them — something they’ve done before — not any kind of commentary on the substance of the claims.
And indeed, they actually made a pretty significant statement about the substance — but not in Trump’s favor.
“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief,” Alito said in the dissent which Thomas joined, “and I express no view on any other issue.”
They key words there are “would not grant other relief.” The lawsuit was seeking an injunction to bar four closely decided states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — from selecting their presidential electors ahead of Monday’s vote of the electoral college. Not even Alito and Thomas would grant that. Legal experts argued this essentially meant they would have dismissed the case as well — just that they didn’t believe the court could decline to accept it in the first place.
In essence, there is no indication any of the justices would have granted the relief. You can’t call it a 9-0 decision because there is no vote count, but that’s hugely significant.”
“Supreme Court Failure “to Affirm Trump’s Complaint of Election Fraud, Washington Post, December 12, 2020