Read this on Conservative Treehouse comment section and thought it was curious:
regitiger
December 12, 2020 1:22 am
I FEEL THE ABSOLUTE NEED TO POST THIS …because there is alot of confusion going on about AG TX case against the 4 states and what “standing” means. What it actually means IN THIS CASE.
The supreme court DOES STATE state that TX has NO STANDING….IN fact, SCOTUS used a clear interpretation of the constitution regarding this matter.
article III..(I recommend reading it regarding standing requirements and thresholds)..
In a nutshell, the majority (presumably 7-2) opined TX having not demonstrated “a judicially cognizable interest”….therefor has no standing BEFORE SCOTUS! (keep this in memory)
Now, TWO of those that opinioned otherwise, USED CASE LAW, SCOTUS RULING to differ on this plainly incorrect basis to reject. Thomas and Alito referred to this:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
the last part…”but would not grant other relief”…has been open to loads of speculation about its meaning…read it simply. These two judges on the high court have “jurisdiction” in at least on or more of the states involved in the suit. Therefore they have a DUTY to allow the filing and see the case. It just that simple. And it’s the constitutionally recognized standard with many examples to reflect it.
the real reason why these two would state the “but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue” is difficult to explain given there is such a brief statement. But remember, SHOULD A FUTURE case even close to this case be brought before the high court, it would be very stupid to have made a presumptive opinion ON THIS CASE either way. Think of it this way: “in ITS PRESENT FORM, we would not grant relief….”…
understand now?
Now how does this work as a positive…?
the case rejected by scotus now sets the range shot for state conservative members to focus on. STANDING IS NOW VERY CLEAR. Alito and Thomas have all but given them the case law to propel and secure a hearing before the high court.
other states can follow with a cut and paste.
MUCH SHIT has been echoed around here and other places about the defeat of AG Paxtons efforts…fruitless…stupid
you folks need to WAKE UP..this is war…you don’t just walk into MORDOR.
think!!!
PRAY!
ACT!