The U.S. Supreme Court looks the other way, ignores illegality, and denies leave to file the Texas election lawsuit


By Robert Willmann

Kneeling down before documented voting fraud and conduct violating the U.S. Constitution's requirement that state legislatures alone create election laws and rules, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Texas "leave to file" its election lawsuit against electoral behavior in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  In a pathetic excuse containing no factual or legal detail, the court said permission to file was:  "… 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"–

A side issue that Congress can remedy is the Supreme Court's own unconstitutional rule that says you have to ask for leave to file a lawsuit in that court which has original, exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states in the U.S.  The courts exist to hear and decide disputes that start with the filing of a document describing the problem.  If you have a lawsuit about an automobile wreck, or breach of contract, or a divorce, or anything else, filing the case is a "ministerial act" by the court clerk.  The court then processes the case under the rules of procedure and evidence.  If a lawsuit presents no real dispute, there are procedures for a court to address that issue, and some cases are concluded fairly quickly without a trial.

In a brief statement by Judge Sam Alito in the order, joined by Judge Clarence Thomas, this issue is mentioned:  "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. …  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".

Their statement is vague to the extent that it does not specify what other relief they would not grant, because if they would not grant any relief requested by Texas and the other states trying to join the case, then there is no reason for them to say that they "express no view on any other issue".  They might be referring to not granting a stay order or temporary injunction.  Or they might be talking about the issue of voting fraud.

As we would say in San Antonio, using a little Spanish, "There are two kinds of judges in this world.  Con huevos and sin huevos".  At this point, the only judge in this country who is (metaphorically) con huevos is Patricia McCullough of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

UPDATE, 12 December 2020:  I realized last night that I did not mention the local description of judges was partly in Spanish, and so I have clarified it.  San Antonio, Texas has a Spanish and Mexican heritage, and so all sorts of expressions are a mixture of English and Spanish. 

Also, the Supreme Court's own rule that they can deny a state "leave to file" a lawsuit there when they are the court with  jurisdiction is unconstitutional because it violates the guarantee of "due process of law" in the constitution.  The idea of due process includes at the very least a meaningful procedure consisting of various steps — a process.  If the Supreme Court can close the door and refuse to take any action in a case, there is no process at all.


This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Justice, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The U.S. Supreme Court looks the other way, ignores illegality, and denies leave to file the Texas election lawsuit

  1. Buckeyelad says:

    Robert, I always appreciate your explanations of the legalities. Lin Wood says he has a case brought as an individual ‘docketed’ with the SC, and I believe it’s been reported that the PA Kelly case will be filed again. Would you venture a guess as to whether the court will view these as having ‘standing’? This issue of standing seems often arbitrary and whimsical to me. I wholeheartedly agree with you that this decision is pathetic. That there still exist judges such as Judge McCullough, gives me the faintest glimmer of hope.

  2. Rick Merlotti says:

    Turn off the lights, the Borg wins again.

  3. Barbara Ann says:

    The unmistakable sound of historic rhyme in the Texas GOP’s response:
    “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

  4. Fred says:

    Constitution, what constitution? Roberts and the 7 cowards have shown this court is no longer relevant. The dissolution of the Republic has accelerated to “warp speed”. At least their liberal neighbors and those they vacation with won’t call them mean names.

  5. John Merryman says:

    For a country printing money to infinity, this all makes complete sense.

  6. Scuppers says:

    The phrase “unstoppable force meets immovable object” comes to mind. If there was ever any doubt that the fix was in regarding this election, this latest ruling should remove all doubt. It’s infuriating. Do the 75 million who voted for Trump take this lying down? I don’t think so. But what does that look like? In my thoughts ….it looks horrifying.

  7. Deap says:

    Repetition of the old law school joke: when you can’t win on the facts, argue evidence and argue procedure. And if that does not work, pound on the table and yell a lot.
    SCOTUS has to be aware the facts support election fraud – too many sworn affidavits, broken state laws, sound patterns of circumstantial evidence and even highly suspect surveillance videos of materially questionable conduct.
    But since that was never allowed into court (anywhere), the great SCOTUS side step was to argue procedure. No standing. A process deficiency; not a content deficiency.
    This now only leaves pounding on the table and shouting a lot. The sound and fury that increasingly signifies nothing, other than the stark reminder the “government” does not nor can fix all wrongs. Another law school homily – not all wrongs have a remedy.
    We the people need to ensure just elections at the state level. We slept on that one.
    Post mortem autopsy needed – when and where could this potential for election fraud have been prevented? At the state level. Why did any state, including mine, accept mail in voting and secretive vote count technology.
    Back to basics, how did this slip through our fingers.
    How did Europe finally reject electronic voting, while we encouraged it?
    (Answer: Covid, covid, covid and Democrat moralizing about increased voter participation – both Democrat hoaxes, but we let them sweep over us)
    The only consolation prize: they got stuck with Biden-Harris, and since they broke it, they now own it. We tried to warn them, but they did not listen.
    The law of unintended consequences – the public sector unions over-played their hand. Their value-added election credibility is now less than zero. Four years of TDS rotted Democrats out to the core.

  8. fakebot says:

    That voter fraud took place is undeniable, but to the extent that it subverted the election is being met with skepticism. I gather the Supreme Court conservatives think there isn’t compelling enough evidence.

  9. Kassandra says:

    Well, seems to be a typical case of a judge’s typical prime checklist for any case before having any look on the issues at all:
    a) Does the plaintiff keep all terms?
    b) Might the case be outside our reference?
    As laywers use to say: It is not enough to have a fair claim, one has to take into account also the judiciary…

  10. TV says:

    Massive Presidential election fraud with 17 sovereign states as plaintiffs?
    Transgender “right” to play women’s sports?
    Of course.

  11. Barbara Ann says:

    There are few things are more horrifying than civil war, but there are some. The crushing of the human spirit for an indeterminate period of time by a ruthless cabal of technocrats is one, IMO.

  12. Keith Harbaugh says:

    For a good look at some issues brought up by the Texas lawsuit, this article by Andrew McCarthy seems quite good:
    The answer that McCarthy comes up with is not the one most of us would like, but his reasoning seems valid to me.
    There is an old saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”
    If Mr. Willmann can point out flaws in McCarthy’s reasoning, that would be great.

  13. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Pardon me for an afterthought:
    Margot Cleveland, surely another authority on the law from the right, has an article which comes to the opposite conclusion from that of McCarthy (namely supporting the lawsuit):

  14. scott s. says:

    I’m afraid what this mainly will accomplish is a bigger push to eliminate the electoral college and put the federal govt in charge of election mechanics.

  15. Richard Ong says:

    Scott S., under Art. I, Sect. 4 the state legislatures determine the time, place, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives but Congress can make or amend such state regulations with one minor exception. There’s nothing now to prevent Congress from writing the rules on how to hold such elections. The states could make rules for how elections for president are conducted which Congress couldn’t touch but it’s a certainty that states wouldn’t provide a separate procedure like that.
    Congress is thus already in charge of election mechanics if it chooses to be.

  16. Bill H says:

    “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
    This is not quite the same as saying that one NFL team should have no grievance if another NFL team plays outside the rules because, while NFL teams are all members of the same organization and should all play by the same rules, they play in competition with each other, while our states do not compete. (Well our states do compete with each other, but that is an aberration stemming from lust for money and power, not a feature of the constitutional organization of our nation.)
    The Supreme Court’s reason might be valid if Texas was complaining about local elections for state offices which affected only the state in which the election was held.
    In the case at hand, however, Texas is complaining about an election for a federal office, the holder of which will have the power to issue executive orders national in scope, wield a veto over the legislature, direct foreign policy, and appoint judges to all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. These are powers that will have a profound effect on all fifty states.
    If the Supreme Court believes that does not give Texas a “cognizable interest” in assuring that all states conduct the election in a transparent manner consistent with the procedure mandated by the constitution of the United States, then the justices are living in the same fantasy land as a president who declared that we are fighting in Afghanistan “to deny them space in which to plan their attacks.”
    With this decision the Supreme Court has given permission for governors and judges in individual states to corrupt the election for President of the United States at will. Whether or not they have done so is beside the larger point that the Supreme Court has given them permission to do so.

  17. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Yes, Bill H,
    Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia have run up the Jolly Roger, flouting the black letter law of the Federal Constitution. If their action does not present a “judicially cognizable interest” for pursuing an action by the other states who have adhered to that black letter law, I don’t know what is. Indeed, the head of the Texas GOP has – out loud – wondered why Texas, and by implication the other states joining in the amicus brief, should continue to remain in union with states who do not think adherence to the compact of the Constitution is important. It is really the old issue of nullification revisited in our time.
    The vote for the offices of President and Vice President is the only vote shared by all of the citizens across all of the states. In light of that fact, this makes the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to hear the case an appalling dereliction of duty; this is a court manqué. All of the states play by the rules stipulated in the foundational document in this regard, or there is no reason to pretend that there exists a union. There is no third option here.

  18. Buckeyelad says:

    On my old neighborhood mechanic’s tow truck it read, “Towing 23 1/2 hrs. a day.” I said, “Frank, which half hour don’t you tow?” He said, “Whenever I don’t feel like taking a call.” I think I’ve figured out the court’s rationale re: “standing.”

  19. Barbara Ann says:

    Bill H
    Your NFL analogy is perhaps better than you realize. The 2020 Presidential election and the SCOTUS’ bizarre decision re the TX case has shades of the 1925 Championship, one outcome of which was the founding of an alternate league; the AFL.
    If Texas is serious about the flagrant disregard for its own rules by the ruling body of the existing league it should certainly consider setting up an alternative one, with like minded teams. Rather than only the 9 which joined the AFL, I understand that are at least 17 which may be interested.

  20. Peter VE says:

    Look at the bright side: all the Justices will still be able to get reservation at their favorite restaurants!

  21. Norbert M Salamon says:

    Citizens United made pay and play electioneering leading to more corruption. The instant case’s ruling, Texas v PA et al] indicates from the highest authority that the RULE OF LAW has died in and for the USA.

Comments are closed.