People are asking me, and I have o idea why, about the motion that Texas has filed seeing suit against the battle ground states. I'm not a lawyer, but I did spend a lot o time in court rooms durg my street-cop career. The rarefied air of the highest court is something with which I have no experience. I"m sure that they are nicer digs than the tawdry parish courts I testified in.
But, I am a casual observer, and I can read, and I notice that Article 5, Section 2 of our Constitution akes the Supremes the original jurisdiction controversies between states. It's their job to listen to squabbles between states.
I'm sure that the last thing that the Supremes want to get involved in is this particular squabble. They would rather opine at leisure about arcane matters of obscure law. If they wanted to get involved in precinct-level politics, they would be working in some public defender's office. And, precinct-level politics is precisely what is at stake here. Texas is claiming that changing the rules in mid-stream in those other states has harmed the citizens of Texas.
John Roberts is squishy at best. And you can believe that he would love to punt on this one. His law clerks are (if my guess is right) are currently looking at lots of dusty law books. Some observers believe that the Texas motion is frivolous, yet it may go squarely to the Equal Protection clause.
There is no doubt that there were shenanigans. Seventy-four million Americans feel that they have been robbed. If the Supremes punt on this one, they may initiate a constitutional crisis, the very thing they are supposed to prevent.
It will be interesting to see what they do.
1 comment:
John Roberts is a homo- who was blackmailed into voting FOR Obamacare. And besides, he is a Trump-hater from way back. He is also a traitor for his traitorous actions as the head of the FISA court.
As for the cases before the Supreme court, the law is a mystery to me and I have no idea how they will go. But I know that you cannot count on John Roberts.
Post a Comment