[383 / 40 / 160]
39KiB, 800x450, D A N C I N G _ I S R A E L I S.jpg
View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Trace

OK LAWFAG BACK

ID:o7FCzD71 No.295766235 View ViewReplyOriginalReport
December 9, 2020 Update: Okay anons, my legal analysis seemed appreciated yesterday on the Texas SCOTUS filing, so I will give a updated version, along with a timeline. High effort post, so hopefully not wasting my time.

Chronology and Explanation:

December 7 - Texas files a motion before the Supreme Court to file a Complaint (first step in a lawsuit) based on Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn, and Georgia's unconstitutional changes to its election laws. Texas argues that these four states allowed election officials to change election laws, which is unconstitutional because such changes require legislative action. Furthermore, Texas argues that these four states failed to apply said election laws equally among each county, which violates the Equal Protection Clause. Texas seeks to prevent these four states from allowing its electors to vote based on the 2020 election results.

December 8 - SCOTUS has to decide whether it will exercise original jurisdiction over Texas’s lawsuit. Layman’s terms - SCOTUS must decide whether to let Texas argue its case. In light of this, SCOTUS demands that the four defendant states respond to Texas’s motion to file a complaint. This is because interstate disputes, such as the dispute between Texas and other states, fall under original jurisdiction of SCOTUS. Original jurisdiction is huge because, unlike other SCOTUS cases, both parties will have to present and develop the factual record before the SCOTUS. Typically, SCOTUS relies on lower court fact finding to assess cases. Here, Texas would present its evidence directly to SCOTUS. This is good for Republicans, as SCOTUS will be the fact-finder and there will be more “GOP” factfinders than “DNC” factfinders. One caveat is that SCOTUS appoints a Special Master for such cases. Whoever is named as Special Master has a huge role. Anons should dig into whoever is named, assuming SCOTUS accepts original jurisdiction.

1/3