I would find it much more interesting if you were to engage on the legal argument being made rather than this sort of perfunctory dismissal.
Are you stating that as long as public officials are "daring to improve their democracy" that they are free to ignore Constitutional requirements that the legislature has plenary authority to proscribe the manor of selecting electors?
Note: Setting aside the likelihood that any of the alleged unconstitutional actions resulted in a different electoral outcome, isn't it important that election law is established through the Constitutionally proscribed legislative process and not via executive and/or bureaucratic actions independent of the legislature?
What legal argument? Texas has no standing to sue Pennsylvania over what is an internal matter to Pennsylvania.
Let's not pretend that this absurd lawsuit has any merit -- it's one in a long line of losing lawsuits (what are they up to, 50 out of 51 lost now?) by the current president to overturn an election result he didn't like.
Standing might certainly a reason why Texas can't sue Pennsylvania in this case, but you've neatly avoided addressing the underlying argument that they are making that the election rules were not changed by the legislature in these states and those actions are unconstitutional.
I'm interested in poking holes in that argument not avoiding it.
> Standing might certainly a reason why Texas can’t sue Pennsylvania in this case,
It is.
> but you’ve neatly avoided addressing the underlying argument that they are making that the election rules were not changed by the legislature in these states and those actions are unconstitutional.
The reason why that is false is well-argued in some of the briefs for the defendant states in Texas just-failed lawsuit, but, in summary: State legislatures are constitutionally free to, as part of the rules they set for elections of Presidential electors, submit those same rules to the same judicial and executive constraints otherwise applicable to state law including those applicable to state elections, the defendant states (and most other states, including those suing) routinely do so and specifically have done so for the rules applicable in this case, and the rules for the elections were all handled according to state law (including the role that state law affords judicial and executive officers in its application).
Setting aside standing and even setting aside any effect on this election, does it not matter for future elections that it be clear that the legislature can't be bypassed in these matters?
> Setting aside standing and even setting aside any effect on this election, does it not matter for future elections that it be clear that the legislature can’t be bypassed in these matters?
No, it would actually be terribly disruptive if the legislature could not subject its regulation of federal elections to the judicial and executive power in the same way as other state laws (and, particularly, laws governing the administration of simultaneously and on-the-same-ballot state elections) are.
The concern here was entirely feigned, hypocritical by the states involved in complaints, and substanceless and purely based on partisan advantage.
That’s a slightly different argument, if you accept that the courts are final arbiters then clearly they get to determine what’s allowed not the legislature.
It’s often argued by public officials that exceptions are allowed in extreme situations, though what those are is of course up to the courts. Perhaps best summed up as "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic... Which of course isn’t a blank check to do anything for any reason, but it is considered by the court system in various cases. There are many examples of this argument being considered acceptable, and perhaps more frequent examples of it being rejected.
As such simply saying the legislature was bypassed on it’s own is not considered a sufficient legal argument.
> As such simply saying the legislature was bypassed on it’s own is not considered a sufficient legal argument.
Well, the interesting point of law here is that the Constitution specifically delegates the authority to the legislature. So in this particular case it may indeed be as straightforward as saying that the legislature was bypassed and didn't authorize the changes. At least that is my understanding of the case so far.
That’s a common thread across other instances of this legal argument and again on it’s own is considered insufficient.
It all rolls back to article III section 2 The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
The legislature is often assumed to have a great deal of power, but it was intended to be relatively weak just like the other two branches of government.
Cases with original jurisdiction to SCOTUS are so rare that I don't think anyone can reasonably speculate to it being tossed (or heard) based on standing.
It's a relatively clean slate in state vs state case precedent. Clean enough that a majority will easily find a way to justify a desired ruling one way or the other.
It really is weird. Normally the supreme court only hears appeals, so it only rules on matters of law. It wouldn't normally rule on matters of fact, wouldn't normally call witnesses, and wouldn't normally have a jury.
If you knew anything about Ken Paxton you wouldn't doubt the person before yours comment. He is very likely guilty of several crimes and generally unliked in Texas. It is not unlikely that he is doing this in exchange for a pardon from Trump on the last day (week?) of Trump's tenure as Prez along with 100s more no doubt. This suit will go no where because no one has presented any evidence of widespread fraud or that states were outside their rights as to how they conduct their elections. It's a joke like Paxton.
You are right that I don't know the motivations of Ken Paxton, but aren't there 18 other states joining in the lawsuit?
In any case you can't dismiss a lawsuit "because no one has presented any evidence". That is part of a lawsuit itself. Perhaps the evidence will be determined to be insufficient but that will be determined within the proceeding itself.
Now if you want to say that the claims presented in this particular motion is unconvincing, that would make logical sense. But any rationale for dismissing the motion has to be based on what is in the motion, not on what is floating around in social media.
> but aren’t there 18 other states joining in the lawsuit?
No, six attempted to do so (since the suit was never permitted to be filed, no one actually joined it.)
18 states (including the six that shortly after that filed to join the suit as party intervenors) filed a request to file a pro-plaintiff amicus brief, which is different than joining the suit.
Are you stating that as long as public officials are "daring to improve their democracy" that they are free to ignore Constitutional requirements that the legislature has plenary authority to proscribe the manor of selecting electors?
Note: Setting aside the likelihood that any of the alleged unconstitutional actions resulted in a different electoral outcome, isn't it important that election law is established through the Constitutionally proscribed legislative process and not via executive and/or bureaucratic actions independent of the legislature?