2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
The timing of this with taking on the Texas case makes me wonder if they are dropping it to opt for that one as it's potentially stronger for SCOTUS? I'm not a law expert at all though, but I would gather they'd rather one encompassing case rather than several state-by-state ones?
 
Gustav Schuchardt said:
Texas filed directly with the Supreme Court though it is not obligated to take the case.

With the PA case, Alito asked both sides to submit their brief by 9 pm on the 8th which makes me think the SCOTUS will rule on that too.
Click to expand...
lol denied
1607464873600.png

Not one justice, not even Thomas, objected.
 
RisingPheonix said:
The timing of this with taking on the Texas case makes me wonder if they are dropping it to opt for that one as it's potentially stronger for SCOTUS? I'm not a law expert at all though, but I would gather they'd rather one encompassing case rather than several state-by-state ones?
Click to expand...
An all encompassing case was used for the gay marriage decision in 2015. Multi-state cases are not unheard of at the Supreme Court. To me it makes more sense because if it is all the same type of issue, it makes sense to include more states. Additionally, it will speed up the court process, thus making it easier for everyone involved.
 
With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Texas case, one would think that the Pennsylvania petition was denied due to redundancy.
This is a good thing.
Multiple states locking arms on one case is much better than the fiasco that's been going on.
 
If no one objected to PA being denied then that makes it clearer they're using the Texas case to be the catch-all case.
 
JambledUpWords said:
Then why did you word it as if I had some sort of duty to do so? You’re being disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Because it proves you won't back up your copes with anything more. There is such a thing as the 'courage of convictions'. You don't even believe the lies you spout enough to lose a bet on an internet message board.
 
An Avenging Bird said:
With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Texas case, one would think that the Pennsylvania petition was denied due to redundancy.
This is a good thing.
Multiple states locking arms on one case is much better than the fiasco that's been going on.
Click to expand...
I would classify this as cope if it weren't for the fact that literally none of the justices dissented on a case that is pretty cut and dry when it comes to the constitutional issues it raises. If even just one of them dissented I'd see it as "yeah, this isn't going anywhere", but as is it does seem like this Texas case will be the big one since it does it all in one go and the judges don't want to waste time, especially if other states start joining like Louisiana has already. Whatever happens, this is making for a good show so far
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom