That is false. The request for emergency injunctive relief was also the request for certiorari. In denying the relief, they closed out the docket and denied certiorari in the process.
And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.
There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live.
If you read the original brief, this is what it requests:
> Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable.
In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)
No, that's a different case. The case Cruz has promised to assist is one in which the state of Texas (yes, the whole thing) is suing other states over alleged election irregularities. When one state sues another, the case goes directly to the supreme court.
And the Texas case is very sound. It gets directly into specific cases and doesn't go down any of the silly Q/Conspiracy routes. Viva does a great analysis:
If you find this convincing I weep for the people who have to interact with you on the daily. The Texas suit is completely bananas and relies on ten pages of complete gibberish from a 75-year-old energy economist consultant. Please read the appendix of the suit. If you know anything about statistics, you'll find it to be total nonsense.
The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m.on November 4, 2020,is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).
This - of course - is only true assuming votes are evenly distributed though out each state, and urban centers vote the same as country areas. He doesn't even mention that in his affidavit.
And he tries to use Z-scores to claim that it's impossible this mean people voted differently compared to 2016! That's ridiculous and - very notably - he fails to to do the same for eg Trump vs Romney or Obama vs Clinton.
No wonder trust in science is decreasing with people asking us to take this crap seriously.
Texas v. is a great case to put in front of a bunch of originalists. You should definitely brace yourself for a ruling that state courts illegally changed election rules because the constitution solely grants that power to the legislatures of the states.
Edit: if they do the states in question will probably call special legislative sessions to repair the defect.
Because the interstate disputes SCOTUS has heard and decided are not about states challenging other states' interpretations of their own laws, but almost entirely about who actually has various water rights? Because the suit alleged here is almost exactly the kind of interstate dispute that SCOTUS has rejected to hear as recently as 2016 (Nebraska v Colorado)?
I'm not a lawyer, but thankfully the constitution is actually a pretty easy read from the originalist perspective that now has significant influence on the court and in this case I don't need to worry about case law and so on, so I'm comfortable speculating a bit.
Here's the relevant text: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
This means that the legislatures of the state have total and exclusive power over the manner in which their electors are chosen. Plainly read, no other body, including that state's judiciary or executive, has the power to direct how electors are chosen. This power is so broad the state could select electors by lottery, or even a poll on hackernews and it wouldn't be subject to any oversight other than a constitutional amendment.
So, you can see that this isn't about a state following its own laws, it's about a state following the constitution. Since the constitution is a pact between the fifty sovereign states, like any other binding pact when another party doesn't follow the rules of the pact they can be sued in the appropriate venue which is the Supreme Court of the United States, or otherwise acted against. Let us hope it doesn't come to the otherwise option anytime soon, because the last time was a real mess.
I think the best, if not necessarily the most likely outcome, is that the court orders the lawbreaking states to fix things, which is as simple as calling a special legislative section and passing a resolution selecting a slate of electors. Presumably states with Democratic legislatures will pick Biden and those with Republican legislatures will pick Trump, but no matter what it will be up to the democratically elected legislatures of the state in question, which in a sane world would be acceptable to both sides.
And your proposed remedy involving throwing away everyone's votes is completely outrageous (as noted by the judge when proposed by the Trump team in MI or PA)
It's unclear if you realise, but this isn't the same thing at all.
SCOTUS settles interstate disputes all the time. But one of the things they look at before they hear a dispute is if the dispute can be settled in a lower court.
In this case, Texas is complaining about the way otehr states conduct their affairs. The normal course to do this would be via the states courts (that is literally what they exist for).
It's very unclear why SCOTUS would hear this instead of directing Texas to file in the state courts.
(There's also the question of standing, but that's another hurdle Texas would have to overcome)
I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that other parties have already attempted to dispute the unconstitutional election changes in those state courts, including their supreme courts, and they've been unanimously dismissed for jurisdictional or procedural reasons. For example, I believe the application of laches in Pennsylvania to be improper because Republicans had sought a stay of the election changes prior to the election. Thus far, it appears the Pennsylvania courts refuse to adjudicate the constitutionality of these election changes.
UTexas Law Professor says about it: "It looks like we have a new leader in the “craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election” category" and "o chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous, offensive, and wasteful one, but a stunt nonetheless."[1]
So a liberal professor in Austin, who is also a CNn analyst, thinks it's a "crazy stunt" with no actual law analysis? [0] And his peers are on the Biden transition team? [1]
