Brooding in the Marble City beside the Great Swamp

The cognoscenti are whispering, whispering of a failure of will and steadiness in the SCOTUS in the matter of the Texas constitutional lawsuit against several states for a failure to provide equal rights to Texans and the citizens of six other states in election process.

According to listeners in the halls of SCOTUS actual screaming could be heard in debate among the justices over whether or not to hear the case.  This is unheard of within the most exclusive club in the world.  Mutual dislikes and contempts are carefully concealed within that charmed circle. An alternative version of the story has them screaming at each others' screens.

On this occasion, Roberts and the liberals made common cause to prevent acceptance of this case under "original jurisdiction" in this case arguing against Thomas and Alito.  Kavanaugh and Barrett were supposedly admonished by Roberts to abstain from argument on the basis of their lack of experience.  With Kavanaugh this would be easy.  IMO he is a broken man, torn to bits and mortally wounded psychologically.  

1.  Roberts actually said (or screamed) that he feared leftist mobs in the streets if the court heard the case.

2.  This establishes a context for SCOTUS decisions in which fear of the mob will decide rather than the concept of the constitution as a compact of the 50 states, a compact created by state ratifications and which cannot be changed except through ratification of changes by the states.

3.  In other words, SCOTUS is no longer an honest broker and referee among the states.

4.  What is left - force majeure?

BTW, in the chart above, North Carolina and Rhode Island had previously voted NOT to ratify but re-voted after Virginia's ratification meant that they would be excluded from the new country if they did not.  

pl

Comments

[Alexandria]

Colonel,

Do you have a citation for this story, or did it come to you by word of mouth to ear?

[oldman2222]

Colonel, you say:
" Roberts and the liberals made common cause to prevent certiori in this case arguing against Thomas and Alito. "
In fact this case had nothing to do with certiorari.
It was an "original jurisdiction" case filed by a state directly in the Supreme Court, as provided by
Article III, section 2, of the Constitution.
The Court held that Texas does not have standing to argue that other states' elections were deficient.
This was NOT a denial of certiorari.

[Horace]

@Artemesia

"That these men, and our nation, are reduced to intimidation by thuggery makes me sad and afraid."

The take-home message is that not only does violence and its threat work, but that violence and its threat are the only things that work. The decision of our ruling elites, who are neither elite nor ours any longer, to push us down this path shows their complete unfitness to rule, their profound lack of legitimacy.

Arrogance beyond a certain level becomes indistinguishable from stupidity. They are counting on our lack of enthusiasm for a war. We didn't WANT a war on December 7th 1941 either, but we were attacked on our own soil and fought all the way to unconditional surrender of our enemies.

[J]

Roberts refusing to hear even the merits of the case, is IMO committing Treason, and criminal fraud. Criminal in that he is bound to protect our Constitution, and fraud in the fact that he is not doing his job that Mom and Pop America are paying him to do. Roberts could (should?) be tried for Treason, in his usurping the Constitution.

The rest of the Justice don't have to follow what Robert says, as he cannot dictate what they do. He cannot take away their birthdays as they have lifetime appointments, and they can form their own union of Justices and kick Roberts and any other weak-knees like Kavanaugh to the curb. The justices need to grow some backbone and tell Roberts that he's not their overseer, the Constitution is.

[turcopolier]

oldman2222

Thanks for the correction. That it was an original jurisdiction case makes it worse.

[turcopolier]

alexandria

Word of mouth. I still know a few people. I have been told two versions. In one they were in the same room. In the other they were screaming at each others' screens.

[turcopolier]

neal

oldman2222 points out that I was in error. This was an "original jurisdiction" case not a matter of certiori (appeal). "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." wiki

[Kilo 4/11]

@ scott s: "For the Texas case, it seems to come down to Texas doesn't like how the legislatures of PA and and the other states appoint their electors."

Your casual attempt to dismiss the Texas suit stinks. Got something against fair elections?

The Texas suit was against the use of the executive power (governor and sec. of state) to change the Pa. voting procedure, by, among other things, granting an extension to the time for vote counting ONLY for the mail-ins and by giving more lenient treatment to those votes by not verifying their signatures.

Moreover, the SC would not be "deciding" the election by throwing it back to the state legislature(s) - it would merely be putting the election back in the hands of the constitutionally correct authorities, who then would decide.

In fact, the Texas suit was an attempt to protect the votes of all Americans, and the SC failure to hear it was the death knell of whatever shred of legitimacy it had left.

[Steve]

Neal, Totally agree. I see there are no rebuttals to your points.
The conservative wing of the SC have built their careers on the 10th amendment.
If Republicans don't like it. Then repeal it.

[Leith]

IMHO it was the Tenth Amendment and NOT fear of mobs that led SCOTUS to deny hearing TX AG Ken Paxton's lawsuit. Justice Roberts used to work in a steel mill so I kinda doubt he is afraid of a whacko mob, whether that mob is leftie or the other end of the political spectrum. Only two justices disagreed with the ruling. Maybe Alito & Thomas were afraid of violence by the Proud Boys or Boogallo Boys or other right wing mobs?

As for screaming, it would have to be at each other's computer screens like the alternative version pf the story that Colonel Lang mentioned above. But even that is hard to believe, all of those justices forgot how to scream decades ago when they first became lower court judges. That fabrication was first put forth by convicted felon Hal Turner's website.

[Scuppers]

Scott s. And Neal, these are disengenuous arguments you’re making. Scott, Texas isn’t objecting to how the legislatures of PA and the other states appoint their electors. It’s objecting to the fact that the legislatures of those states were excluded or over ruled or prevented from making the rules of how the elections in those states should be elected. A right granted exclusively to them by the constitution. In other words, that authority was usurped in those states by the governors, attorneys general, and courts of those states. In other words, the elections in those states were unconstitutional.

Neal, Texas is clearly going to be affected or injured. As are all the other states that ran a constitutionally correct election. A non political example might be the NCAA. Rules and agreements are made among the collegiate sporting world. Don’t you think that all the schools would be affected in the overall outcome if some schools flouted recruiting rules and hired actual professional athletes to stock their teams, stacking the deck,, while the NCAA looked the other way and ignored their own rules? A school administration is free to hire any professional athletes if they want, but then they can’t compete in the NCAA.

[Scuppers]

Neal, you make this trite statement: “ The only arguable basis for the Supremes -- or any part of the federal government -- to get involved would be Article 4, section 4.” Which is a bit like saying “the only reason for the authorities to get involved is because Jeffrey Dammer butchered and ate his victims, which is against the law.” It is THE reason. No other reason is needed. It compels involvement.

[turcopolier]

steve

Texas' objection was that the legislature of these states were usurped in their constitutional function.

[Steve]

Then their legislatures were usurped by themselves. At least here in Wisconsin,where all election laws were ratified by the gop legislature in 2011.