After the Supreme Court denied a hearing for the Texas lawsuit that was backed by 17 other states and 126 Houses Republicans, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said it’s not over.
"The case wasn’t rejected on the merits; it was rejected on standing,” he said late Friday on NEWSMAX. And that is true.
Giuliani said the case can be brought to district court by the President and by some of the electors themselves, “alleging some of the same facts where there would be standing and therefore get a hearing.” Electors can argue that THEIR constitutional rights have been violated.
"Basically, the courts are saying they want to stay out of this and they don’t want to give us a hearing; they don’t want the American people to hear these facts," Rudy said. "I think that’s a terrible, terrible mistake. These facts will remain an open sore in our history unless they get resolved. They need to be heard, they need to be aired, and somebody needs to make a decision on whether they’re true or false. Some court’s going to have to have the courage to make that decision.”
This is a terrible mistake indeed, and I don’t have to tell you that Supreme Courts have been known to make them now and then. As Rudy said, this comes down to the issue of standing. Personally, it seems to me that Texas would have standing, as what other states do unconstitutionally to affect the outcome of a federal election will effectively disenfranchise them. The question of standing, of course, is a legal one with much precedent, and I am not a lawyer. But it makes sense to me; I thought this was a brilliant argument that nailed the problem with what several Democrat-run states did. Texas has been damaged. In fact, all Republican states have been damaged, as their power is diminished with a wrongly-elected Democrat Vice President breaking ties in the Senate.
It also seems to me that by refusing to at least hear this case, the justices are in effect saying that each state can do ANYTHING, violate the U.S. Constitution all it wants --- even if its unconstitutional rule changes result in widespread fraud. Sure, state officials, go ahead and violate your own state constitution in a way that changes the result of federal elections. Just because your state legislature doesn’t want to change the law doesn’t mean you can’t do it anyway. Why, you can keep “finding” and counting votes clear up to December 14 if it helps you get your desired outcome. Texas and all the other states will just have to live with the results of what you do.
The ruling from SCOTUS was terse: “The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
See, I would consider Texas’s interest to be, to borrow a term from the Declaration of Independence, “self-evident.” So it comes down to whether their interest is “judicially cognizable.” Translation: “understandable by a judge.” I'm not a judge, but what’s to understand?
The vote was 7-2, with Justices Alito and Thomas saying they thought the case should be heard while expressing the lack of intention to supply any relief. (That is not “cognizable” to me; they decide this before hearing the case? Then why hear it?) Trump appointees Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh simply said no with the rest. But some legal actions remain.
Trump says he’ll keep fighting. “The Supreme Court let us down!” he tweeted. “No Wisdom, No Courage! So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far --- and you purportedly lost...A Rigged Election, fight on!”
Lin Wood has appealed his Georgia case to the Supreme Court. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he had the same problem everybody has been having with “standing.”
Also, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that deals with whether laws enacted by the state legislature were followed. Because the Electoral College is scheduled to meet December 14, they’re hearing it Saturday.
Of course, it doesn’t require a Supreme Court decision for state legislatures to remedy this mess themselves by appointing clean slates of electors, as a number of prominent conservatives and Republicans urged them to do in a letter. If the Electoral College meets on Monday, this would have to be done over the weekend.
There needs to be pressure, and lots of it, on state legislatures in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to make this right. (If you live in one of these states, you know what to do.) Especially in Georgia, with its razor-thin margin, they KNOW the Biden-Harris win was the result of fraud in their states. There's just too much evidence in the form of sworn affidavits and wild statistical anomalies and impossibilities for them not to know this.
Trump senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis said that “this is a moral failure across three branches of government.” They have clear evidence that the executive branch changed the rules. Many state legislators “want to do the right thing,” she said. SCOTUS is not supposed to decline to hear a case of original jurisdiction (state vs. state), and that saying the states don’t have standing is “a ridiculous political posture.” She said that “regardless of the outcome here, we’re going to continue doing the right thing.” It’s worth it, she said, to fight on.
Allen West, chairman of the Texas GOP, released a statement in response to the Supreme Court’s rejection of his state’s lawsuit. He says pretty much what I did above: that in tossing this lawsuit, they “decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law, resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. Constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic."
He ends with this: "Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution.”
Gulp. Our country truly is evolving into two distinct camps: one that cares about the law and one that doesn't, and the courts are allowing this to happen. Rudy is right: this is a terrible, terrible mistake. It has caused an open sore, as he says, one that will be getting salt rubbed in it by leftists in the coming months as they make more terrible, terrible mistakes.