The Supreme Court dismissed Texas’s bill of complaint in the latest high-profile case pushed by Trump allies in an attempt to overturn the results of the election. The Court did not issue an accompanying opinion.
As expected, Justices Alito and Thomas, who had previously stated that the Court does not have discretion to turn down the cases, would have granted the motion to file the complaint but not granted other relief and expressing no view on the merits of the case.
Whether we count this as 7-0-2 or otherwise I’m not sure. Justice Barrett did not indicate that she recused (as I thought she should have in any election cases in which Trump was a party).
The outcome was never in serious doubt given how weak claims were both legally and factually. A Supreme Court decision to hand the election to Trump on the flimsiest of legal and factual foundations would have been end of modern American democracy and sparked widespread unrest.
I find much solace in the fact that not just the Supreme Court, but courts across the nation, with both Democratic and Republican judges, held the line for the rule of law. This is something really to celebrate as I’ve said. slate.com/news-and-polit…
But the fact that 18 attorneys general and 126 members of Congress, all Republicans, could line up behind this outrageous Texas case is horrible and bodes ill for the country for years to come.
Modern American history has not had a President falsely, repeatedly, and relentlessly claimed voter fraud and election irregularities like Trump has. As I wrote in the NY Times recently: nytimes.com/2020/11/23/opi…
The Republicans who lined up with Trump in the Texas case are either cowards or worse: those who reject the foundation of a democracy that losers concede after a fair election. We had a fair election, despite what Trump and his supporters say.
This will have bad consequences for democratic stability going forward.
And now what’s of other lawsuits? Trump is appealing to the WI Sup Court one of his latest losses, and there are a few more cases out there. None of these cases will amount to anything. This has been clear for a month despite president’s protestations.
The electors will meet on Monday, and then Congress will count the votes on January 6. Biden will prevail, though I fully expect drama that day as objections are made. Unless both houses of Congress sustain an objection, the objection fails.
The Democratic House is not going to sustain an objection to the Biden electors.
So some litigation may continue, but it will not change election results. The delegitimization of the Biden presidency by Trump, and of elections generally, will reverberate for years to come. And that’s a real tragedy. <end>
[Addendum: The court did say that Texas lacked standing because a state has no “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” This may turn out to be important in shutting down other attempts like this for one state to sue another.]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When I was on @NewsHour on November 5, I said that Trump had no grand legal strategy to overturn the results of the election. Nothing has changed in a month, other than a streak of losing, poorly conceived and worse executed cases. pbs.org/newshour/show/…
If anything, the lawsuits in the last weeks have gotten worse
You've got to be kidding me.
At the appellate level and Supreme Court level, the appointing judge is the best predictor of how a judge/justice will vote in the highest profile cases.
Not because they are hacks, but because they were chosen for their genuinely held ideology.
I can predict with near certainty how almost every Supreme Court Justice will vote in nearly every election case. And my first rule of thumb is which President appointed the Justice.
#ELB: Donor Sues True the Vote Claiming He Gave $2.5 Million to Fund Jim Bopp Litigation to Expose Fraud in Battleground States to Help Trump, But the Group Withdrew Their Complaints and Did Nothing. He Wants a Refund. electionlawblog.org/?p=119080
The complaint alleges that True the Vote through Bopp finally agreed to give back only $1 million of the $2.5 million to fund absurd voter fraud litigation, in exchange for an agreement not to sue for the rest.
The complaint also alleges that True the Vote withdrew its four lawsuits filed by Bopp in consultation with the Trump campaign.
The reason for the withdrawal have not been made clear publicly.
First thing to note about the Trump campaign brief in the 3rd Circuit: it throws Trump's prior counsel under the bus for "incorrectly omitt[ing] numerous allegations and counts"
Key point: the Trump brief says it is not trying to disenfranchise 6.8 million PA voters, "just" throw out about 70,000 votes. BUT it also asks ultimately for court to void election, and let PA legislature choose electors. That IS disenfranchising 6.8 million PA voters.
The brief is procedurally weird, asking casually for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Trump campaign should be asking for an injunction pending appeal if it wants preliminary relief. But it doesn't. It wants remand to reconsider proposed amended complaint
#ELB: Breaking: In Total Loss for Trump Campaign in Its Most Major Remaining Election Case, Federal Court in Pennsylvania Dismisses Case and Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint [link to opinion] electionlawblog.org/?p=118942
The federal court judge just EXCORIATES the Trump campaign for seeking to disenfranchise nearly seven million Pennsylvania voters with SHODDY legal arguments. We told you it would be this way:
From the judge on the merits: "Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent."