The Supreme Court has DENIED Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit, which was signed onto by multiple states and supported by over 100 member of congress.
There was a dissent from Alito and Thomas, but it seems to have been based on matters of jurisdiction and not the merits of the lawsuit. And the ruling itself was not on the merits, but on the matter of “standing.”
Notably, the three justices appointed by Trump did NOT dissent from rejecting the case.
Here are the immediate reports on Twitter, with excerpts from the ruling. We will update this post with more info as it comes in.
NEW #SCOTUS denies TX case for lacking of standing @CBSNews @JanCBS READ: pic.twitter.com/TtFABPNsGX
— Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) December 11, 2020
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has rejected a Texas lawsuit to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory, ending a desperate attempt to get legal issues rejected by state and federal judges before the nation’s highest court. https://t.co/Y9bd0l4DEP
— The Associated Press (@AP) December 11, 2020
BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to overturn the outcome of the election. https://t.co/7eyfSI9yno pic.twitter.com/p2kWbqMZhY
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 11, 2020
To explain the statement by Alito and Thomas: This is totally separate from the merits. They think the Supreme Court is required to hear suits between states, so they think they can’t just deny the filing. But they also clearly say they would NOT grant relief to Paxton et al.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) December 11, 2020
Alito and Thomas dissent in part from the SCOTUS rejection of the Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate Biden’s victory. The three Trump-appointed justices did not record any dissent. pic.twitter.com/IpEnM2uf0u
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) December 11, 2020
UPDATES
Texas GOP chair says in light of Supreme Court tossing out Texas case, “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” pic.twitter.com/j84IKPrwqy
— Ben Wermund (@BenjaminEW) December 12, 2020
LISTEN
Listen as Mark Levin breaks down the case, after first breaking SCOTUS Justices over his knee.
This ain’t my exact cup of joe, but lots of folks are sayin’ it.
SECEDE!!!
— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) December 12, 2020
I mean, on the one hand, every since taking Texas History in 6th and 8th grades, I always kinda thought that we should’ve stayed our own country, anyway. Still, overall, if anyone is interested, my personal view is that I don’t really cotton to this talk quite so much. Not just yet anyway. But, like I said, it is being floated a lot on social media right now, and by the Texas GOP, so no reason not to tell you about it.
BY THE WAY: Here is Texas GOP Chair Allen West’s full statement.
Not over. And that’s not “undermining democracy” —that’s evaluating the constitutionality of ACT 77 in Pennsylvania. That’s investigating the vote swap in Antrim County Michigan. And investigating Dominion. THE US CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR THIS (inc electoral college vote swaps)
— Greg Kelly (@gregkellyusa) December 12, 2020
h/t to the comments for this good tweet.
Interesting reply to Greg Kelly, too.
Rudy & company would NOT have traveled state to state, presenting evidentiary testimony for each of those states (respectively), if they thought the Texas challenge was the be-all, do-all, end-all of all time.
Keep the faith…for now.
But #BeReady— Liberty's Leviathan (Parler: @LibertysLeviathan) (@LibertysLev) December 12, 2020
Military intervention? Hmm.
Trying to overthrow the Government by exploiting a Pandemic, thus implementing rules that break our election laws, is unconstitutional.
If the DOJ and the FBI can't do their jobs, then where is the Military?This is a Coup! https://t.co/ubZ2dCPjIZ
— Diamond and Silk® (@DiamondandSilk) December 12, 2020