Thread by @bansisharma

1. Misgivings About SCOTUS's Dismissal of the Texas Lawsuit

I am not a constitutional scholar, but allow me to dispel a few misgivings about the Texas lawsuit dismissal by SCOTUS, if you will. Read this thread at your own peril. :-)

2. First of all, let me register my disappointment at SCOTUS's summary dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of lack of 'standing.' I concur with Alito and Thomas that the case should have been accepted on principle alone, regardless of merit.

3. And the principle is a simple one. For every legal case in the nation, there has to be a recourse to a court of law. Now in matters of disputes between multiple States, SCOTUS has the exclusive jurisdiction, i.e. such a lawsuit can be filed with and only with SCOTUS.

4. So SCOTUS must accept such a lawsuit on principle, because there is no other recourse if it doesn't. That I believe is the meaning of the statement that Alito and Thomas attached to the summary dismissal. It was not a dissent, just a reiteration of their longstanding position.

5. So I would have preferred for SCOTUS to have accepted the case and rendered a more detailed decision because it would have served a great purpose of providing guidance for all such future cases.

6. My disappointment only goes that far and no further, because I never thought SCOTUS would overturn the result of the election. I always thought the most SCOTUS would do is throw it back to the States, but with a clearer guidance on next steps.

7. This case is not like Bush v Gore which dealt more with questions of the mechanics of counting votes and such. This case had much more of a philosophical underpinning.

8. The core issue in this case dealt with the impact of decisions made in some States regarding the conduct of the election on the citizens residing in other States in the nation.

9. Texas alleged that the defendant States (GA, MI, WI, PA) had made changes to their election rules by a process that violated the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and repercussions of that illegality had negatively impacted citizens of Texas.

10. And what was the illegality the defendant States were accused of? It was that the executive branches in those States had made changes to their election rules that the U.S. Constitution only granted power to the legislative branches in those States to make.

11. The facts here are not in dispute. That is exactly what happened to a number of election rules regarding mail-in ballots in defendant States. The only dispute is about the significance of those facts and a corrective recourse.

12. The reason I believe SCOTUS would never have allowed this argument to go too far is because just by acknowledging that Texas had a legitimate complaint, they would have opened a Pandora's box of unbelievable and unmanageable proportions -- a republic-destroying precedence.

13. It would legitimize every State in the nation having a right to poke its nose into every other State's business whenever any State wanted to make a change to their election rules or processes, because obviously every such change has national repercussions.

14. Any SCOTUS justice with even a modicum of intelligence wouldn't go there, and they would be right not to. There is a rather simple answer here, which is obvious to even a layman like me.

15. The U.S. Constitution gives each State in the nation a certain number of electoral votes that is equal to the number of members of Congress from that State.

16. The U.S. Constitution also gives each State legislature the right to decide its own way to choose those electors and how those electors cast their votes for electing the President of the United States. And that is it.

17. Beyond that the federal constitution does not interfere with the inner workings and decisions of individual States. Texas has no say in who Pennsylvania votes for and what process Pennsylvania uses to decide that.

18. Now if Pennsylvania does something illegal in the way it changes its election rules, then it only Pennsylvania's business and nobody else's to seek recourse to fix it.

19. If Pennsylvania executive branch usurped Pennsylvania legislature's authority, then the wronged party is Pennsylvania legislature, and therefore the only party that has 'standing' in a court case is Pennsylvania legislature.

20. If Pennsylvania legislature wants it can sue Pennsylvania executive branch in Pennsylvania Supreme Court to seek redress, and if the resolution there is unsatisfactory, seek recourse from the U.S. Supreme Court.

21. But here is the kicker. Even after all that if the case landed up in U.S. Supreme Court, in my view, SCOTUS will still throw it back in Pennsylvania legislature's face on account of the case being frivolous.

22. How so? Well, SCOTUS will say why are you seeking redress from the U.S. Supreme Court when you have the Constitutional power to redress your own damn grievance? After all, you have the sole authority to decide who your electors vote for.

23. If you don't like what your executive branch did to you, you have the power to override the results produced by your executive branch processes, and tell your electors to vote differently. End of story.

24. And there you have it. It is down to each State to clean up its own mess. Texas cannot force them to, and SCOTUS cannot help them.

That is my layman's legal analysis of the situation. Call off your hounds directed at SCOTUS justices. Focus on individual States.

The End

P.S. This is what States' rights in practice look like. Sometimes they can break your heart. Then again, the U.S. Constitution is not a romance novel. 'Keeping the republic' requires tough but grown up decisions, like the one SCOTUS made. It's a balancing act, not a disco dance.

Disclaimer: As I mentioned at the outset, I am no constitutional scholar, but I can read and interpret the Constitution just as well as any other layman, and I am a keen student of important SCOTUS decisions, which I try to read in full, because MSM invariably misleads.

I did not intend the above thread to be taken as anything more than what I claim it to be, and that is a one layman's opinion that hopefully provides rich food for thought for the readers to explore further in consultation with people they trust on Constitutional matters.