Thread by @RonColeman

@MikayesFiona Docketing is just a rubber stamp

@MikayesFiona This OTOH - fourth entry down - is a

scheduling order 👀

@MikayesFiona And the same friend who sent me that, writes as follows:

"That scheduling order is not automatic. It's specific to the relief sought.

"I predicted the Texas suit in November." >

@MikayesFiona "I'm following everything. More than you can imagine.

"Look at my search results from November: >

@MikayesFiona "Trump said his lawyers told him he 'didn't have standing' in a 'big beautiful suit that covers everything' back in November.

"Now what lawsuit on God's green earth would be comprehensive but not allow the candidate for president to have standing?

"Answer: this one." >

@MikayesFiona "You can only get ORIGINAL jurisdiction in SCOTUS in a dispute between the states.

"The only way to have one 'big beautiful lawsuit' where a court has jurisdiction over all states is in SCOTUS.

"So a STATE could file the 'big beautiful lawsuit' but the President cannot." >

@MikayesFiona "Only lawsuits by states against states qualify for original, rather than appellate, jurisdiction in SCOTUS.

"That's why his lawyers said he wouldn't have standing >

@MikayesFiona "That didn't make sense to me. So I researched it. That's when it made perfect sense. And that's been the plan all along.

"You think it's coincidence that Texas files midnight before SCOTUS was to consider PA's case? No way." >

@MikayesFiona "And Alito doesn't dissent - when he ALREADY said what PA did was unconstitutional?

"Once this case was filed, SCOTUS got the message. They deferred on PA - just on the injunction request - to knock out all four." >

@MikayesFiona "Notice also regarding the 'big beautiful lawsuit' that his lawyers did NOT say that there is no COURT in which to do this.

"They said that HE does not have standing.">

@MikayesFiona "As I've learned following Trump closely all these years, he's always saying things that sound ridiculous at first, but are very much grounded in reality."

Thus ends my friend's DM's. I nipped and tucked a bit for the sake of the threading.

You can take it or leave it. But: >

@MikayesFiona It answers a few questions.

One was the Alito question, and I just gave the same answer, privately, to someone myself. Alito may very well have not changed his mind about the issue. Indeed, I believe he is making a stand here in a way he never has in his judicial career. >

@MikayesFiona If this is right, he did not change his mind about the legal ruling, but may have changed his mind about the case.

More: As has been pointed out elsewhere, however ancient and obscure, there is precedent for this procedural approach in SCOTUS. And that court loves precedent. >

@MikayesFiona Also, this lawsuit, at this hour, draws on all the information, evidence, data and legal missteps of the previous cases - the ones that were savaged for their errors and sloppiness because they had to move first and fast against the institutional current - & the state hearings >

@MikayesFiona Moreover, that this lawsuit was filed by @KenPaxtonTX helps me understand a cryptic remark by a friend in recent days which I cannot share with you, unfortunately - and you know my life is otherwise an open book here! >

And, finally, this:

I know this will cost me, but...

Hear me out. >

For weeks I have been watching Thomas Wictor's videos - flattery will get you everywhere! - and I flinched each time he said one particular formulation:

"When the Supreme Court sees this evidence of widespread fraud..."

Oy! I said each time, slapping my forehead! >

"Why does he say that! He means when they review the record of fraud in the lower courts! You can't introduce evidence in the Supreme Court!"

And damn if every lower court so far has refused to let that evidence be heard.

Well, I'm not saying Thomas knew it, but... >

I'm just saying: There IS a time when the Supreme Court can consider evidence in the first instance: When it hears a case in which it has original, not appellate, jurisdiction.

There's pretty much one kind of case like that.

And that's the case I woke up to this morning. 🌞 <>

https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/1334954169854275586?s=20