Image 01 Image 03

U.S. Supreme Court denies Texas lawsuit “for lack of standing”

U.S. Supreme Court denies Texas lawsuit “for lack of standing”

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling in Texas’ lawsuit challenging election procedures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The lawsuit divided the nation, with roughly half the states supporting and opposing the lawsuit, respectively.

The Court just denied Texas’ request to file a Bill of Complaint. Justices Alito and Thomas would have granted it, but denied any additional relief.

Here’s the Order:


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.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

“Standing” is required to sue because the federal courts can only hear actual cases and controversies, not hypothetical cases. To make a case and controversy, the person filing the lawsuit must have suffered an actual harm, not a merely hypothetical harm (the doctrine of standing can be complicated, but that’s a simple explantation). As to the “standing” problem, here is what Pennsylvania argued in its opposition:

 Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections….

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to resolving “cases” and  controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997). That same jurisdictional limitation applies to actions sought to be commenced in the Court’s original jurisdiction. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 735-36 (1981). To establish standing, the demanding party must establish a “triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 103 (1998). More specifically, that the plaintiff has suffered injury to a legally protected interest, which injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged action and redressable by a favorable ruling.” AIRC,
576 U.S. at 800; see also Maryland, 451 U.S. at 736. This Court has “always insisted on strict compliance with this jurisdictional standing requirement.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 819. For invocation of the Court’s original jurisdiction, this burden is even greater: “[t]he threatened invasion of rights must be of serious magnitude and it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” People of the State of N.Y. v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 309 (1921). Texas fails to carry this heavy burden.

First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact. An injury in fact requires a plaintiff to show the “invasion of a legally protected interest”; that the injury is both “concrete and particularized”; and that the injury is “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). According to Texas, the alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Election Code undermined the authority granted to the Pennsylvania General Assembly under the Electors Clause.8 Motion at 3, 10-11, 13-15. But as the text of the Electors Clause itself makes clear, the injury caused by the alleged usurpation of the General Assembly’s constitutional authority belongs to that institution. AIRC, 576 U.S. at 800 (legislature claimed that it was stripped of its responsibility for redistricting vested in it by the Elections Clause). The State of Texas is not the Pennsylvania General Assembly….

Second, Texas’s claimed injury is not fairly traceable to a violation of the Electors Clause. As discussed above, each of Texas’s allegations of violations of Pennsylvania law has been rejected by state and federal courts.

Third, Texas fares no better in relying on parens patriae for standing. It is settled law that “a State has standing to sue only when its sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests are implicated and it is not merely litigating as a volunteer the personal claims of its citizens.” Pennsylvania, 426 U.S. at 665. The state, thus, must “articulate an interest apart from the interests of particular private parties.” … Texas has no sovereign or quasi-sovereign interest at stake. It is a nominal party, at best.

Here was Texas’ counter-argument on standing:

Voting rights are fundamental, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), and the Senate is a body in which Defendant States’ actions threaten Texas’s voting rights. U.S. CONST. art. V, cl. 3 (States’ “equal suffrage in the Senate”). With that standing in
its own right, Texas can assert parens patriae standing for its citizens.2

Although Pennsylvania characterizes this action as a “seditious abuse of the judicial process,” Penn. Br. 2, and ‘uniquely unserious,” id. at 11, Texas seeks to enforce the right that preserves all others in a democratic republic: suffrage. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62 (1964). Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition, moving this Court to cure grave threats to Texas’s right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.

The potential loss of suffrage rights meets the serious-magnitude test that Pennsylvania poses, Penn. Br. 13, and the purely legal nature of Defendant States’ violations meets its clear-and-convincing test. Id. Michigan suggests that remand to legislatures to reconsider the result of the election would not redress Texas’s injury, Mich. Br. 34-35, but that is not the law. FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998). Michigan also argues that the remedy would disenfranchise millions of voters, id., but Michigan officials disenfranchised those Michigan voters. Specifically, Michigan admits it cannot segregate the illegal ballots from the legal ones, id. 9, which admits the impossibility of a lawful recount on remand to the Michigan executive. Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604, 617-18 (1953) (“admissions … are admissible … [as] statements of a party”). Remand to the legislature is the only viable option. Whether the legislature sets a new election or provides some other mechanism to allocate Michigan’s electoral votes is up to the legislature.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ok, I’m going to throw out a hypothetical here:

Suppose it is 2024 and the Presidential race is nearly tied between Cruz and Harris, with only Texas left to report. Suddenly, a hundred-thousand mysterious ballots show up in the Houston count, Texas is declared for Cruz, and is set to get 270 electoral votes. A manual recount is called for. The Texas count shows exactly the same numbers, but a truck is reported to have shown up at the counting place just an hour before the ballots appeared, and the driver claims to have driven an unidentified cargo to/from a nearby warehouse. The Texas supreme court dismisses every case the Dems throw at them on the grounds of standing.

How can the Dems challenge Texas at the US Supreme Court given the recent ruling? i.e. who would have standing to challenge the Texas procedures?

    They’ll make something up. No big deal.

    It’s over. Face it. Voting machines are a joke – and they have likely been rigged for decades, accounting for a lot of weird election results – like obamas’ Chicago elections and Illinois elections and national elections.

    Oh, btw: does anyone have an argument anymore that the CIA did NOT kill John F. Kennedy?

    In case you haven’t noticed, the rules are different for Dems

      sfharding in reply to MarkS. | December 12, 2020 at 4:35 pm

      You bet they are. If the shoe were on the other foot you can be sure everyone would have standing to sue. Your dog would have standing to sue.

do not possess the legal training of many here–am just an ordinary southern man who has tried to live this life in accordance with the law and the dictates of my conscience

to me, by denying even a hearing of the grievances of over 100m americans, scotus has forfeited their supposed authority/jurisdiction over our country–they have proven they are not ” the court of last resort ” and certainly not supreme by any measure and by doing so, have breached a fundamental clause of the ” social contract ” upheld by generations of americans since our country’s inception

if they are not bound by the constitution, by the ” social contract ” between the federal government and the citizens of this country, then neither am i

    You don’t need any “legal training” to understand the gravity of what just happened. Just open eyes. And you seem to have them.

    We no longer live in “America”. We live in a banana republic, where EVERYTHING – including justice and our military – is for sale.

    Remember what obama did: he decimated our military, and allowed ISIS to spread like cancer. Trump came in, rebuilt the military, and decimated ISIS.

    With that whore Harris poised to be president – and a puppet like not other puppet in world history – our military will be decimated and corrupted and run by men in high heels wearing lipstick.

    It’s over. Considering we no longer live in America, the goal now is to find a new America. Trying to govern what seems to be the most corrupt government, media and educational system in world history – attendant with a population that is either hopelessly useful idiots or just simply useless – America will never be America again.

    Don’t get complacent, because you’ll wind up like the McCloskeys.

    It has come true.

    Secession is the only way out for us. Let’s start the discussing the logistics.

OT, but life-saving: Doctor testifies before U.S. Senate, that if you take Ivermectin, you will not get sick from the Chinese Virus.

Also, if you take it early, will substantially reduce chance of death.

The Electoral College

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, …”

As the Legislature. Not the state supreme court. Not the Secretary of State. Not the Governor. ‘THE. LEGISLATURE.’

It’s one of the rare instances when the federal constitution reaches directly into the powers of a state government to COMMAND it perform a specific duty in regard to a federal election. ‘THE. ‘LEGISLATURE.’

Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin didn’t play by those rules for a federal election to decide the Chief Executive for the entire nation. Whaddyoumean other states have ‘no standing’ in other states’ disregard for the rules of the game as outlined in the U.S. Constitution?? If ever there was an interstate imperative for SCOTUS to opine, THIS IS IT!

No standing? That’s the craven abdication of moral duty from men without chests.

    I’m sure the point has been made over and over, but the Court is in an impossible position and they’re trying to navigate it with as close reasoning of the law and Constitution as possible to reduce blowback (as if that were possible). That goes double for the three Trump judges, who are desperate to avoid the appearance of partisanship in what is likely to be the most significant crisis of their careers. (Oh, that Democrat judges felt the same way!) It seems to this non-lawyer that their position is that only the legislatures of the offending states have the standing to file suit, and they aren’t going to accept anything from anybody else.

      Ohio Historian in reply to txvet2. | December 12, 2020 at 9:44 pm

      As far as the legislature filing, it’s laches if those legislative caviling cowards were to ever grow a pair.

Well, since the Supreme Court has now endorsed the end of the Electoral College, The Democrats won’t have to undertake the messy job of killing it publicly.

Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, meet your new colleagues Stacy Abrams, Kim Foxx, Lori Lightfoot, Dana Nessel and the rest of the Soros Justice League.

And no one will have “standing” to oppose it.

The Conferences should be Da Bomb!

I would think every state has an interest in every other state conducting a free and fair election. Else-wise if we turn a blind eye to fraud, what’s to stop Texas from producing a billion fraudulent ballots to drive up the popular vote for their choice?

“What’s that you say? A billion votes from Texas is 3500% of our population? It was fine when it was Detroit so what’s your problem? Our secretary of state has certified that is an accurate vote count. So stuff it Yankees.”

    r2468 in reply to MrE. | December 12, 2020 at 8:18 pm

    I was thinking TX could send a couple hundred electors to vote at the electoral college. After all laws are merely guidelines now.

    Milhouse in reply to MrE. | December 12, 2020 at 9:28 pm

    That’s not how it works. PA is entitled to 20 electors, and how it selects them is none of TX’s business. TX is entitled to 38 electors, and it’s none of PA’s business how it selects them. If TX declares that 100 million Texans voted for Trump, it still only gets 38 electors. This guarantees that fraud in one state doesn’t affect the other states.

      Hi Milhouse!
      I was awaiting you.
      So, yes, I see your point, and you can probably see the Texas point. If a State violates their own election laws.. and none of the other States did.. an advantage is given.
      However, Methinks this Pennsylvania problem is designed for the Supreme Court.
      The Legislature Vs. the Governor & SOS..
      They were quite clearly usurped.

      r2468 in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2020 at 7:40 am

      State election laws were changed to violate state constitutions. I’m merely asking why our federal Constitution should be treated any differently? States are allowed the stuffing of ballot boxes. Why Stop there? Let’s take this though to the finish line unless you agree with the results now and want to stop the fraud while you are winning?

      r2468 in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2020 at 8:00 am

      I’m merely asking what would happen if state(s) pack the Electoral College. That could be a court case beyond the deadline forcing the decision Into the House.

      r2468 in reply to Milhouse. | December 13, 2020 at 8:07 am

      How about we schedule a water main break for the Electoral College or send the votes to a Republican state for final tally? We can make an algorithm for that. Just thinking of things that happened recently. New rules for thee.

What are courts for?
1. For leftist judicial activists, to force laws on the nation that Congress won’t enact
2. For certain recent “conservative” justices, to avoid giving any impression that they care about the collapse of justice

    It’s all over. The curtain has been pulled back. Barr has put a stake in the heart of the scam:

    Trump tweet goes hard after William Barr:

    IF Biden gets in, nothing will happen to Hunter or Joe. Barr will do nothing, and the new group of partisan killers coming in will quickly kill it all. Same thing with Durham. We caught them cold, spying, treason & more (the hard part), but “Justice” took too long. Will be DOA!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020

    If Biden gets in, nothing will happen to Hunter or Joe. Barr will do nothing, and the new group of partisan killers coming in will quickly kill it all. Same thing with Durham. We caught them cold, spying, treason and more (the hard part), but “Justice” took too long. Will be DOA!

    Why didn’t Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public, before the Election, about Hunter Biden. Joe was lying on the debate stage that nothing was wrong, or going on – Press confirmed. Big disadvantage for Republicans at the polls!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020

    A Trojan Horse is being wheeled to the White House. But this Trojan Horse has it’s doors open, laughing along the way.

    If Biden is allowed into the White House, our nation is done. The mafia that is posing as our “government” will be complete and avowed enemy, as will every major corporation, as will every court, every media outlet, every news organization, every sports franchise doing business in Red China.

    Eisenhower warned us.

    John F. Kennedy took on the CIA and they blew his brains out. Then they shot his brother, Robert.

    Then Democrat president Johnson – the most crooked congressman in US history – came up with a scam called the “great society” and invented a welfare system to loot. To top it off, at the same time, started the Vietnam war as a profitable enterprise, going so far as to hire a businessman as secretary of defense.

    Then bill clinton came in and sold us out to the Communist Chinese by selling them our missile technology.

    Then Bush came in, doing little to stop the rot, and in fact rewarding it with more social programs for the government mafia to loot.

    Then came the 8 years of treason by obama, and looting by biden.

    Now, the scummiest two people in politics are about to be handed the power of the presidency.

    Why is everyone still asking questions about this?
    Why isn’t everybody asking questions of how we’re going to get out of this life-threatening catastrophe?

      Just a couple notes as I read your post:
      – Hunter accepted $350,000 for his board seat, alluding to corruption. However, corporate boards look for relatives of famous people to put on their letterhead to impress investors. These VIP board seats can pay a large amount. It would be the same thing with Malia Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Baron Trump, or one of the younger Bushies.

      – Re JFK, in his last days, Quincy Jones disclosed it was a mob hit. JFK and Sam Giancana wanted exclusivity with the same girl: Marilyn Monroe. Robert got involved as well. It’s a plausible theory. And Ruby’s shooting Oswald looked exactly like a mob hit.

      – What is life-threatening when Biden assumes the WH? What specifically are you scared of?

      Appreciate your feedback. As my bio explains, I have feet in both groups and I want to understand this one better. #Peace

        Close The Fed in reply to Kyoshi. | December 13, 2020 at 11:41 am

        Kyoshi, you show a lack of thinking ability in asking what is life threatening about biden taking office.

        he’s promised he won’t let up on the virus crap. That is killing children who are being abused and neglected at home. It’s killing men who are despondent over the lack of activity because of shut downs — many men abused as kids arrange their lives to stay very busy so they can forget (ignore) their memories of abuse.

        biden doesn’t care about medical science. it’s out there, that ivermectin will prevent infection from the chinese virus. instead he’s going to push vacinations. How many will have ill effects from that and die?

        biden will continue to humor his parties thugs in the streets, that have killed many people. The same thugs will continue to harass normal Americans who have a different point of view.

        Seriously, how dark are those shades that you wear?

        Let’s talk longterm. since biden depends on china for his son’s gifts and evidently his own income, china will prevail in America. How many Americans will never have a chance at certain employment now, since China wants us weak and wants our industry? How many Americans will kill themselves over bad prospects? The number will not be zero.

        Longer term, let’s say for some reason there’s a rift between America and China. Or China directs us to do something we’re disinterested in doing? We have learned that almost all, 90+%, of our medcines are made in China now. How many people will die when we irritate China and they cease sending medicine?

        Seriously, get a new pair of glasses.

          No worries. I’m here to listen and learn respectfully. If anyone’s interested in what’s being said on the liberal side of the chasm (SoCal), I’m happy to share.

          >> he’s promised he won’t let up on the virus crap…
          By “let up” you mean he intends to implement shutdowns? I agree that’s a tough problem with the economy and a pandemic. What would you do?

          >> ivermectin will prevent infection from the chinese virus.
          Ivermectin is an antiviral undergoing animal trials at present. There are other antivirals and vaccines in various stages of development. Here they are:

          >> biden will continue to humor his parties thugs in the streets…
          Do you think the violence could be a small group of extremists on either end of the spectrum and the majority of both parties are reasonable human beings who’ve been polarized by social media and vilified by the ‘other sides’ media?

          >> Seriously, how dark are those shades that you wear?
          Opaque at times. We’re getting different stories. I’m trying to get to the truth. Thanks for engaging.

Whenever I see “The case lacks any legal standing” Makes me want to say “Yea, Supreme asshats? If millions of Americans stand on your collective faces, do ya think that would be enough legal standing?” I think if anything should be changed in our Constitution, it should be “If any member(s) of the Supreme Court displays any kind of political bias, they shall be dismissed from their post and henceforth be barred from practicing law in any capacity within the borders of the United States or it’s territories.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg would not have been able to protect abortion throughout her 900 years on the bench, she would have, most definitely,been dismissed with her political rhetoric about Trump, and I am sure Sotomayer and Kagan, the sawed-off runt would not be far behind. The Supreme Court has become a political body and nedds to be righted again.
I am fearful of today’s species of politician, on either side of the aisle, making any new Amendments to our Constitution. We need to review EVERY Amendment to the Constitution that has been added. Some may have been passed in the middle of the night with the cover of darkness. A Convention of States is necessary to do that. The organization doing that is slow-walking it so much, the states that have agreed to join will have different members of their legislature before those morons get the movement out of 1st gear. All I hear from them is “We need more money” I have replied “Let’s see some action before you get another cent.”

Can the legislature change the rules so any election that violated election law is null and void?