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.