@TimothyNoah1 That’s because the procedural posture was a motion for leave to file a complaint. The majority of the court takes the view that it has discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over cases between states. Alito and Thomas take the view the language of the relevant ...
@TimothyNoah1 ...constitutional language is mandatory, and that the Court can’t just say no, you can’t file a complaint. That’s not a crazy position, because the provision at issue uses the word “shall,” which suggests the mandatory exercise of jurisdiction, not discretionary.
@TimothyNoah1 So the Alito/Thomas position is that they have to let the complaint be filed, because the Court can’t refuse any case between states. But that doesn’t mean it has merit, and that it wouldn’t be dismissed for any number of grounds, including the fact that Texas had no standing ...
@TimothyNoah1 ...to sue. And the fact that Alito and Thomas said they would not grant any further relief (the requested temporary injunction) suggests strongly that they saw no merit to the claims and would have granted a motion to dismiss. As a practical matter, if the Court had taken ...
@TimothyNoah1 ..the Alito/Thomas approach, it would have denied the application for an injunction and the electors would have voted on Monday and then the Court would have dismissed the case as moot.
@TimothyNoah1 *constitutional provision
@TimothyNoah1 Here’s an amusing way to put it
https://twitter.com/whignewtons/status/1337546929371230210
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
