Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied the Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint previously filed by the State of Texas on behalf of the citizens of Texas alleged to have been harmed by the unconstitutional modification of sister state voting laws in violation of the Electors Clause ... opening the door to a myriad of election manipulation(s) and fraud that interfered with the outcome of Election 2020 in those states. Texas alleged that the unconstitutionally renegade elections conducted by these states necessarily injured and diluted the votes of Texas residents.
The Court denied Texas’ motion tersely stating that it had failed to show Article III standing without citation or explanation for their legal conclusion notwithstanding the fact that the issue had been extensively briefed by the parties and those who sought to properly … and improperly … intervene as parties and ‘friends of the court” (amicus curiae). For my part, I believe this to be juridically inexcusable and for me raises the question of whether the court’s concern for self-preservation outweighed their Article III duty. This Faustian bargain they appear to strike is likely not going to lambs-blood-on-the-door-jam save them from the court packing intentions of the new “administration” and their unholy cadre of rage-mania politically burn it down bedfellows. The Court’s self interest is and should never be a factor. It undeniably appears to have been ... "here."
As for “standing” … understand that Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction (authority) of the federal courts to “cases and controversies.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992) In order to be within the authority of the courts … (‘subject matter jurisdiction’) ... the plaintiff must have “standing” to bring the claim. In other words … the plaintiff must have a legally cognizable interest in the dispute. The Court must determine that there exists what has been referred to as an “irreducible constitutional minimum” consisting of these three elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered a concrete injury; (2) the injury is connected to the actions of the defendant; and (3) it must be likely that the injury can and will be redressed by a favorable outcome.
In this case, the Court’s analysis was limited to the four corners of the proposed bill of complaint. No evidence was adduced. But, the Court did not share it’s thinking concerning the actual deficiency of the pleading … or whether the injury pled was not ‘concrete’ … connected to the alleged misconduct … or could not possibly be redressed by a favorable outcome. In my professional opinion, their judicial duty compelled an explanation … common sense demanded it … and the restoration of faith and trust in our political institutions required it of them. Instead, they delivered a doesn’t-work-for-most-children “because I said so” response. That never goes well. This is no exception.