The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Supreme Court

Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Unanimous Rejection of the Texas Election Lawsuit

The Court made the right decision and demonstrated its independence. But it may not still claims that the election was somehow stolen from Trump.


The Supreme Court.


I agree with almost everything that co-blogger Jonathan Adler says in his excellent post about tonight's decision. He's especially right to emphasize that the ruling is unanimous, in the sense that all nine justices oppose granting Texas the extraordinary relief that it sought. Justices Alito and Thomas differ with the majority only on the issue of whether the Court has the power to deny leave to file a complaint in an "original jurisdiction" case where one state is suing another. That is an important technical issue that has arisen in previous cases, and is likely to reappear again. But it has nothing to do with merits of Texas' arguments. As I explained in an earlier post, denying leave to file a complaint was probably the simplest and easiest way for the Court to dispose of this case quickly, and this ma ybe why the justices chose this approach.

It is also significant that all six conservative justices - including all three of Donald Trump's own appointees - voted with the majority. Indeed, none of the three Trump appointees (including the recently appointed Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump said he wanted to get confirmed quickly in part for the purpose of dealing with election disputes) even went so far as to agree with Alito and Thomas' view that Texas should be allowed to file its complaint (even if only to be immediately rejected). This undermines both Trump's own expectation that his appointees should just do whatever he wants, and fears by some on the left that they might do just that. Unlike all too many GOP politicians, the conservative justices showed tonight that they are neither Trump toadies nor partisan hacks, and reaffirmed the Court's independence.

Tonight's decision also indicates that Alito and Thomas are unlikely to get a majority for their position on original jurisdiction cases anytime soon, even though there is a solid case that it might be right. None of the other seven justices seems to agree with them.

I am a bit disappointed that the Court chose standing as the basis for their decision to deny leave to file. For reasons I have indicated previously, I am no fan of the modern doctrine of constitutional standing, and believe that it should be rolled back, and perhaps even completely eliminated. That said, the justices were right to conclude Texas lacks standing under the doctrine as it currently exists. The reasons why are well explained in briefs filed by the defendant states in the case. It was never likely that the Court would fundamentally rewrite the doctrine of standing in a case like this.

I do worry that the Court's decision to reject the case on procedural grounds will give more fuel to Trumpist claims that the plaintiffs were actually right on the merits, and that Texas would have won if only the justices had been willing to take up its claims. Texas' position had numerous substantive flaws, as well. But committed partisans are likely to ignore that or be unaware of it.

More generally, I fear that tonight's ruling won't stem the dangerous tide of conspiracy-mongering about the election by Trump and many of his allies, and it won't prevent a good many of his supporters from continuing to believe such claims. That said, the Supreme Court cannot be expected to solve all the flaws of our screwed-up political discourse. The justices' job is much narrower than that. And tonight they did it well.


NEXT: Supreme Court Unanimously Denies Texas Emergency Relief, Refuses to Grant Motion for Leave to File (Updated)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. [sorry for the thread-jack]
    Just wanted to point out that Time Magazine selected Biden and Harris as (co) Person of the Year. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when Trump first heard this.

    1. I believe you are mistaken, I was at Mar a Lago the other day and there was a framed Time magazine that clearly stated Trump was not only Person of Year for 2020 but Time went ahead and made him Person of the Century. I’m guessing you saw a deepfake Time cover.

      1. Know what? I saw a Time magazine on the wall once with MY OWN PICTURE on it as Person of the Year. Also, it was some sort of futuristic issue where the image moved whenever I moved!

    2. You know who else was Time's Person of the Year?

        1. Makes sense the Literal Hitler would also be Time Man of the Year then.

      1. Yes, I knew that . . . it's a pretty common trivial question/answer. My point was that it's things like this that Trump values a great deal, and it must have caused his head to explode that BOTH Biden and Harris got the recognition and he never did. I agree that "Man of the Year" is not in any way an award. But I do think Trump is one of those "as long as they spell my name right" people.

        I stand by my "fly on the wall" comment. 🙂

        1. " it must have caused his head to explode that BOTH Biden and Harris got the recognition and he never did."

          Is there a definition of the word "never" that excludes the year 2016?

          1. Crap. Of course you're right. I had intended to write 'Never did again.' Brain fart. (I think the presidential winner has then been Man of the Year each presidential election year this century.)

            Good catch.

    3. I don’t think he will be any more upset by Joe and Kamala for getting Times person of the year for getting the vaccine developed and approved so fast than he will when Joe and Kamala get the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Abraham accords in a few months.

      He knows how the awards are selected and Republicans need not apply.

      1. ...Have you heard of Donald Trump before?

      2. "Republicans* need not apply"

        Where do the Volokh Conspirators find so many ignorant, grievance-consumed right-wingers willing to publish such easily refuted comments?

        Other than Federalist Society conferences, I mean.

        *Eisenhower, Westmoreland, Nixon, Borman, Kissinger, Sirica, Reagan, Lovell, Nixon again, Ueberroth, Reagan again, Bush, Gingrich, Starr, another Bush, Giuliani . . .

    4. They should have given it to the people who developed the Covid vaccine. I guess they'll just have to settle for getting the Nobel Prize.

    5. Time magazine still exists?

    6. Meh...

      I saw that and I was like "Oh, like when Obama won the Peace Prize in 2008?"

      It's really just virtue signaling. Time almost ALWAYS selects the presidential "winner" as person of the year. They did in 2000 Bush, 2004 Bush, 2008 Obama, 2012 Obama, 2016 Trump.... etc.

      Why they felt compelled to include Harris is...odd. Probably virtue signaling

  2. "But it may not still claims that the election was somehow stolen from Trump."

    Do you read the comments at this blog, Prof. Somin? If so, you know how gullible, how stupid, how disaffected, and how character-deprived right-wingers have become. I gather you also know how your co-bloggers lather these rubes.

    1. Sorry, Professor, there's no appeasing the Kirklands of the world.

      1. I think Arthur's point was, "There is literally nothing that could or would still claims that Trump was robbed." Nothing from the Sup. Ct, nothing from other Republicans, nothing from the media.

        Given that; the fact that this SCOTUS decision will not stop "we wuz robbed" bleating is sort of irrelevant. Although the point is, obviously, correct.

        1. I’ve been very critical of the Texas lawsuit, but let’s be clear here, the Supreme Court did not make any ruling on election fraud today.

          1. No, _other_ courts have ruled on election fraud. The Texas case essentially conceded that they have no way of showing fraud, so they didn’t even ask the Supreme Court to find any; thus, even if they’d ruled on the merits, and even if they’d ruled for Texas, it wouldn’t have been a showing of election fraud.

            1. Name one -- all the suits were dismissed on technical, procedural grounds.

              And this is the attitude that Joe Sixpack is going to take:

              1. The "procedural" grounds often included the fact that Team Trump either failed to allege actual fraud (as opposed to "it's possible somebody might have committed fraud") or failed to provide any indication that their fever dreams of fraud were plausible or had evidentiary support. So, yeah, you get dismissed without a hearing on the merits when you can't even adequately allege fraud. (And, fyi, alleging "There was massive FRAU in Pennsylvania!!!" isn't an allegation that's gonna get you past 12(b)(6).

                As Forbes put it with regard to the Pennsylvania case:

                The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit threw out the case in a scathing 3-0 ruling, saying the Trump campaign “had to plead plausible facts, not just conclusory allegations” and “do more than just allege conclusions” for their case to succeed.

                1. *should have been "FRAUD". Alleging a massive German woman also wouldn't cut it, but that's kind of irrelevant. Or, actually, that does sound like the nonsense that would end up in a Trump lawsuit.

                  1. I assumed that the Frau in Pennsylvania was the proverbial fat lady who has sung (repeatedly).

                    1. It probably is. A much wittier observation.

  3. As far as knowing what actually happened in the election, I look forward to some old-school journalist - the type who looks for who, what, when, where and why and just wants the facts - doing a detailed investigation of the recent election.

    Don't worry, professor, there are two things in which you can take comfort.

    For one thing, surely any fair journalist would find there's no evidence of electoral misconduct!

    And even if, per impossible, they were to find such misconduct, this would only be after Biden and Harris were safely installed in office, so it wouldn't make much difference anyway.

    1. Maybe a joint investigation with the birthers?

      1. Why do you recoil from an old-school journalistic investigation which you claim to know will come out in your favor?

        As for the claim by Obama's literary agent and others that he was born in Kenya, that is not true, as investigations disclosed.

        1. He did recoil, so much as mock the fact that your search for the truth goes like this:

          My candidate didn't win.
          I feel like he should have won.
          They counted more votes for the other guy.
          Obviously, there is fraud.
          I am confident to the point of delusion that any investigation will confirm that my desired and expected outcome was the "real" outcome.

          I definitely hope there is an "old-school" journalistic investigation into the soundness of the 2020 election. But I have zero doubts about what counts as a valid old-school journalistic investigation in your book: One that confirms you gut feeling (which is a product of immersion in Limbaugh/Hannity/Trump/Gingrichian fear-mongering.

          1. "I definitely hope there is an “old-school” journalistic investigation into the soundness of the 2020 election."

            So you agree with what I said,

            Yet you feel it necessary to engage in mind-reading.

            And to top it off, you're bad at mind-reading - your Helm of Telepathy must be in the shop.

            I really don't know what a full journalistic investigation would reveal, and I'm open to the possibility that the people, in a constitutionally-prescribed manner, actually chose pro-Biden electors. Which wouldn't be to my taste, but it could certainly be the case.

            The fun part of putting on your wizard's cloak and gazing at your crystal ball is that you can see the other person saying things you *want* them to say, so you don't have to engage what they actually *did* say.

            1. "But I have zero doubts" [delusional rant follows]

              This doesn't inspire confidence in your dedication to the truth.

            2. Cal Cetín : "I really don’t know what a full journalistic investigation would reveal..."

              Manfully conceded, sir! Let me suggest a possible answer : Let's say Trump appoints a full Commission to investigate fraud allegations, not just of the most recent election but of all the ones previous. Let's say he stocks that commission with fanatics on the subject of voting fraud. Let's say he appoints an uber-fanatic to head it.

              What would it reveal? Next to nothing, just like Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. It found zilch before collapsing in embarrassing chaos and failure.

              1. "Let’s say Trump appoints a full Commission"

                That's not what I suggested.

    2. Well while I suppose a journalist could use the FOIA to go through the records and do an investigation, that isn't how it should be done.

      The legislature can audit results for any and no reason whatsoever, and I think a few audits would give more confidence in the results. While I am fraud curious, I do think Joe Biden probably won the election.

      Arizona (which was the closest state) should be a model for how to handle the fraud claims:

      PHOENIX – Four Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature are calling for an audit of Maricopa County’s election equipment and software.

      Senate President Karen Fann and Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers, along with Senate Government Chair Michelle Ugenti-Rita and House Majority Leader Warren Petersen, issued a press release on the matter Friday after “numerous phone calls with members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.”

      The five-member board, which has four Republicans, unanimously certified the county’s results Nov. 20 after hearing extensive reports from elections officials who said the vote count was correct and noted that all tests and hand-count reviews showed the electronic ballot count was 100% accurate.
      After a thorough recount the only course, if you still have doubts, is to audit signatures, ànd compare the number of ballots counted to the number legally cast. Most jurisdictions do keep records that can reconcile the two.

    3. James O'Keefe is on it!

  4. While it would be amusing to read the beat-down had the court ruled on the merits, it's always a good idea to take procedural wins as wins, even if you're not personally paying the attorney's fees.

    Agree that this won't allay the fevers of the true believers ("the dangerous tide of conspiracy-mongering about the election by Trump and many of his allies"), but then neither would a well reasoned judgment on the merits. We're still in for a long ride.

    1. Well what was alleged in the suit is that the election procedures as implemented on election day were in variance with election law as crafted by the legislature. Things like signature validation, valid reasons for requesting absentee ballots, and deadlines for receiving votes.

      I don't think anyone seriously contests that there were many instances of executive and judicial edicts ordering deviances from the laws as written.

      I think Texas could easily prove those facts as alleged.

      Where I part company with Texas, etc all, is that they either hand standing, or a cognizable remedy. So I mostly agree with the results, but granting leave to file and then issuing a summary judgment that even assuming all the facts as alleged would provide no possible remedy.

      In fact what they should have acknowledged is that while the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case, they don't have any authority to order a remedy. The supreme court has ruled in the past that the legislatures have plenipotentiary authority to select electors in whichever manner they chose, how could the supreme court then order the legislature to select the electors by the procedure requested by Texas?

      1. The theory that judicial review does not apply to election laws remains novel and pretty weird.

        1. The theory is not that judicial review doesn't apply to election laws. It absolutely does. What doesn't apply is judicial rewriting.

          1. Well, that line is very much in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

            Replacing the legal analysis of the court with your own doesn't make your take the right one.

            1. But sarcastro, you fail to understand that Brett is the ultimate constitutional authority, wrt to state and federal constitutions.

              No need for those effete judges to weigh in.

    2. It's not even the lack of a well-reasoned judgement as much denied our day in court.

      Thanks to the Dems, Impeachment is now defined as whatever a majority of the House says it is, so when we take Congress back in 2022, we can impeach both Bite Me and Her Arse for election fraud and have this trial in the US Senate instead.

      1. Team Trump has had something like 50 days in court now and they all end up the same because they don't bring the goods they claim they have when they show up to court. It just isn't enough to say to a judge, but I really, really believe I should win. You've gotta prove it.

        They haven't even done the preliminary work to show that there's any possibility they could prove what they claim in public statements (but not in court filings, hence the problems). So, they are either incompetent or they are full of BS. Or, my impression: Both incompetent and full of BS.

        1. But go ahead and contribute your $20 to their legal defense fund. Dear Leader needs your money to keep FIGHTING for You! (random capitalization being a trademark mating call of Trumpus corruptus).

        2. Team Trump has had something like 50 days in court now and they all end up the same because they don’t bring the goods they claim they have when they show up to court. It just isn’t enough to say to a judge, but I really, really believe I should win. You’ve gotta prove it.

          You know, there's this really cool concept that's been taking litigation by storm lately. It's called "discovery," and allows a party to get non-public information from their adversary that they can't by definition access before filing the suit. You then "prove it" using that non-public information.

          Try it sometime -- I promise you your win rate will skyrocket.

          1. You know, in federal court you don't get to file suit saying, "I think Defendant committed fraud. Now let me fish through their life to figure out how." Fraud must be pleaded with particularity, not merely recited many times in the complaint "fraud fraud fraudulent fraudulently" and then addressed at a later date.

            1. You know, in federal court you don’t get to file suit saying, “I think Defendant committed fraud. Now let me fish through their life to figure out how.”

              No kidding, Sherlock. But what that had to do with the thread at hand, I'm sure you'll cheerfully enlighten us.

              1. That's what you suggested. When you file a lawsuit, you have to make allegations that are supported by information you already know. But, importantly, you have to do so in good faith or face possible sanctions. Team Trump has often held press conferences waiving binders of alleged supporting evidence, but then doesn't include the necessary allegations and also doesn't include the affidavits that supposedly show fraud. The former suggests they don't really believe what they say at their press conferences, because they won't say to a judge what they will say to their gullible supporters. The latter suggests they know for a fact they are lying to you, because they claim to have evidence that they will show "at the appropriate time" but then never show it.

                If you believe these con artists at this late date, you really aren't within reach of help. You want to be conned.

                Assuming maybe you are still within reach: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

                Claiming there was massive fraud that changed the election requires bringing the goods, not just "this doesn't feel right and it's not what I want to have happened, so it must be fraud and the courts should rule in my favor based on my gut feeling."

      2. No worries, Letitia James has already said she would give donald his day in court!

  5. Suppose court decided to hear and rule on the case, and then rightly concluded that it was no more than a crude pile of poppylarky without merit, and then wrote a 9-0 decision to that effect. A GTFO document with no ambiguity.

    That would do little or nothing to discourage the Trump jihadists. You would sooner see ISIS accept female suffrage than you would get the rank-and-file Trumper to believe anything other than the election was stolen. Instead they would conclude that the judges were traitors to the cause, or were coerced, or that some devilish legal tricker by the evil libs brought the result about. And that the Biden "regime" was illegitimate regardless.

    In that regard this lawsuit was a spectacular success. The rubes will send even more money into Trump's super-PAC.

    Sorry but that is just the nation we have now.

    1. Will you still think they are dumb rubes if/when the GOP sweeps up in 2022 on both the state and federal level?

      1. We will all continue to think you’re a rube when in fact the GOP doesn’t sweep California’s state legislature in 2020.

      2. Jimmy, I hope we last that long -- who's going to trust balloting after this?

        1. The sane people who continue to make up the vast majority of the American populace.

          1. Well, I am hearing from disillusioned Trumpists that they will "never vote again" because this election was stolen. Frankly, I am not too upset if they stand by their word. But, being Trumpists, I am not holding my breath that what they say today has any relation to what they do tomorrow.

    2. What Joe Sixpack now understands is that Shakesphere was right.

      Populism doesn't respect courts in the first place (remember Shay's Rebellion?) and it would be one thing if he'd had his "day in court" and lost -- but he never got any of his claims heard.

      That is the EXACT situation that led to the Klu Klux Klan after the Civil War and I'm praying that we merely abolish the legal profession, i.e. give everyone a bar card.

      Otherwise, we'll see a cultural revolution....

      1. "Otherwise, we’ll see a cultural revolution…."

        We are in the concluding stage of a culture war. The bigots, religious prudes, and right-wingers lost, and lost big. That's why they are so disaffected, disagreeable, and desperate.

    3. Wrong. This "rube" would feel that we got "our day in court."

  6. I've been saying all along the problem was the remedy: They look at the remedy, decide that there's no way on Earth they're going there, and then find some basis to refuse the case.

    If a case comes along on the topic of legislative plenary power over presidential election laws, that does NOT involve overturning an election result as a remedy, THAT they might take.

    I don't actually blame them for being deathly afraid of that remedy. The justices who vote for THAT remedy would be painting targets on their chests. They'd become uninsurable.

    1. I bet Souter will be laughing when he reads about this in the newspaper on Monday. His life of sitting next to a warm fireplace with a cat on his lap and a book in his hands must be very fulfilling.

      1. He may not get that.

        While I'll go no further than posting "Impeach Roberts" on every telephone pole on Route 73, I'm starting to have some really bad feelings...

        1. "Starting to"? You've been peddling this bullshit for at least six months.

          1. I'm listening to someone advocating a citizens arrest of Joe Biden on a major radio station. I wasn't hearing this 6 months ago.

            1. Mighty good proovin' Ed.

              If your barometer of America's willingness to go in for political violence is right-wing talk radio call-in blowhards, that explains a good amount.

              1. You clearly lack a background in political research.

                And my point is that I wasn't hearing this 6 months ago.

                1. You clearly lack a background in political research


    2. Jesus, Brett.

      The Justices voted against how you wanted because of implicit liberal death threats.

      You're a crazy person now.

      1. The left spend the summer setting cities on fire, including buildings with people in them. Yeah, I'd say any Justice who didn't expect to be whacked if he voted to give Trump a second term was suicidal.

        1. Not what the left did, and not really even a proper characterization of what the rioters did.

          Yeah, I'd say you're nuts.

          1. You keep saying stuff like that, as if proclaiming someone is "nuts" will protect you, or people you care about, or other things you value when people finally get completely fed up and actually go "nuts".

            1. All-talk right-wing pansies are among my favorite culture war casualties.

              Open wider, clingers. Your betters have even more progress to shove down your compliant throats.

              1. My fist takes a XXX-large glove.


              2. First you capitalize "White," now you use the homophobic term "pansies."

          2. Your denial about the riots doesn't make me wrong about them.

            1. No, the fact it came from your mouth makes you wrong.

              You have no credibility, and consistently cherry-pick evidence to suit your insanity. It is reasonable to assume that anything you bother to say, is factually incorrect at all times until you manage to prove otherwise.

              Note: That means proper citations, and not deliberately snipping your quotes immediately before the context demonstrates that you're being deceitful and dishonest about the 'evidence' you present, like you did with the supposed election software comment a few weeks back regarding Michigan or Wisconsin. I can't keep your lies straight, so I don't remember which state it was.

            2. Lol. The whole crowd of evil leftists got together to respond to your comments. The sewer backed up and there they all are.

              1. Sigh. I wanted so much to be part of the "whole crowd of evil leftists"

        2. I'm not really engaging by the same reasoning as noted in the other thread by I think bernard.

          You have unfalsified telepathy here in service of Trump cannot fail only be failed. Its dumb and cognitively lazy.

        3. And Brett, the truly scary thing is that the right knows that....

    3. Brett, you keep saying, "plenary power over election laws."

      To suppose that could be, is to suppose the sovereign People decreed a power to government, to constrain the People in the exercise of their sovereignty, at the very moment the People would be most active in constraining government.

      No matter what the text says, does that make any sense to you? Isn't there some kind of legal canon against construing a text in a way which makes it nonsensical?

      1. I think you profoundly misunderstand what the framers were trying to do. The British system of having the leaders of a parliamentary majority comprising the executive branch was the system they were familiar with. But they feared two things in comprising their own government: giving to much power to a central government and allowing it to dominate the states, and giving direct elective power to the people to elect the president, who might be too ambitious and power hungry.

        Having the legislatures of the states in control of the electoral college kept the concept of the British system of elective representatives selecting the executive but kept it at the state level so congress would not be the source of all national power.

        We talk a lot about the three branches of government and the balance of power, but the founders saw the states as much a part of that balance as the other 3 branches. After all it was the states that were coming together to form a national government, it certainly makes sense that they wanted to retain much of that power for themselves, such as choosing the president.

        1. Kazinski, three points:

          1. You are arguing from what you take to be plausibility, not from history. You believe a lot of stuff about founding principles that you learned somewhere, but not from original historical records. You are trying to fit what you learned together, to make sense of it, but that leads you to fill in with suppositions of your own. As you say, "It certainly makes sense . . . ," you ought to be asking yourself what original sources exactly you can quote to support those notions you think make sense.

          2. The original records do not say what you think they do. For instance, Madison, among other founders, did not fear giving direct elective power to the people. He favored it, and argued for it. The real dynamic driving much of what the nation lives with today—and which has so often been misrepresented as carefully structured principle—was just political compromise. Too many small-state politicians had enjoyed outsized influence under the Articles of Confederation. They wanted that to continue. They argued the case as if it were principled, but forced it through on a power play, because their opponents had to concede or see ratification suffer in consequence. That's why so much of the federal government today is based on anti-democratic per-state voting, not because there was any agreed-upon principle behind it.

          3. I return fairly often to the topic of sovereignty because it loomed so large in founders' political thinking, and is so little thought of today. That was at the center of my comment to Brett, but you touch on it only enough to get it wrong. There was never any inkling that congress would be the source of all national power. The founders were crystal clear on where that was sourced, from the sovereign People themselves. And not, by the way, from the People primarily as citizens of the states. The founders' idea was to make the People of the United States newly sovereign, and supreme. That began with the Declaration of Independence. It was strongly reinforced at the Federal Convention. That was why, "We the People," called their national constitutive decree, the Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land;" and said, "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

          No, it was not the states that were coming together to form a national government. It was not, "We the States." It was, "We the People," just as they said. The founders could not have been more explicit, or more insistent. The American founding was, first and foremost, an assertion of national popular sovereignty.

  7. SCOTUS refusal to shit on the constituent does not undermine the concerns that they will still be partisan hacks. Only time and many decisions later will determine that. Census case is first up.

    1. For clarification, I want to be wrong and later admit that the Trump appointees are honest justices.

      1. The short answer is that neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett owe Trump anything at this point. They have their own agenda, and demonstrating that they are not stooges for Trump only consolidates their position, so there's no upside for rubber-stamping Trump briefs.

        Are they honest? I'm quite certain that they think they are, just as you and I think we are. So, no, I don't think they are dishonest - and in particular they are not concerned by being primaried in two years for showing insufficient fealty to Trump, unlike so many dishonest Republican elected office holders.

        I'm sure that I will disagree with many of their opinions, but I also expect that in each case each of them will honestly believe they are ruling correctly.

        1. I do wonder about Alito, tho.

            1. He seems not to have a consistent jurisprudence so much as a partisan one - maximum gain for Republican interests, if not policies.

              To be fair, I see something of the same ideology not jurisprudence in Sotomayor.

          1. Sarcast0, don't forget Kavanaugh. Spent his formative professional years doing nothing but partisan crap. Promised partisan payback in his confirmation hearings. I see Kavanaugh as sort of the Court's Bellmore. Always partisan, always convinced it's for legitimate reasons. Never concerned, because the enemies deserve what they get.

            1. Insufficient data as of yet - we shall see.

      2. Keep in mind Kavanaugh and ACB and Roberts are Bush loyalists and most likely despise Trump. And once again, Trump’s original sin was relinquishing his most valuable leverage over McConnell—judicial appointments. So as a #NeverBush Republican I actually was cautiously optimistic when Trump won...and then he appointed Tillerson and relinquished judicial appointments to McConnell and that was the end of the Trump presidency and the beginning of the Jeb! presidency. Oh what could have been had Trump had someone with a brain advising him??

    2. “They keep declining to be partisan hacks because their rulings are consistent with my tribe. Some day they’ll rule in a manner my tribe opposes and I can call them partisan hacks them”.

  8. It will be sad to hear about the upcoming suicides and strange accidental deaths that will befall Hunter's past associates in 2021 and 2022. All those weightlifting accidents, unsolved random shootings, overdoses, unwitnessed fatal single car crashes, and no-note suicides will all be very unfortunate when they occur.

      1. January 2023. Kamala Harris impeachment first, then Joe if he's still alive.

  9. The entire news media and dozens of former intelligence officials just got done telling a coordinated lie about Hunter’s laptop being "Russian disinformation". Everyone knew it was a lie the entire time. Now they've basically admitted it, after the election.

    You "fear" that people won't believe their stories about the election? Really? Did you think coordinated, obvious lies and coordinated tech company censorship and obvious, ham-handed manipulation of media leads to popular trust? Did you think they would result in a quiescent, contented population? Do you think you and everyone else in America would somehow escape paying a price for this and every other deceit? Really?

    I can't believe it didn’t all work out great. Who could have predicted people might react this badly? It sure is a mystery.

    1. " Did you think they would result in a quiescent, contented population? "

      You will comply with the rules established by better people, Ben, juts as you have throughout the entirety of your bigoted, inconsequential life.

      1. I will, but I'm saying "f*ck it" and walking away.

        What happens, happens....

        1. "What happens, happens…."

          What happens is that the Conspirators whine about inadequate affirmative action for right-wing law professors; their fans rant about socialists and Muslims and Blacks and Kenyans and communists and globalists and elitists; and all clingers mutter and sputter about how they can't abide all of this damned reason, progress, tolerance, modernity, and inclusiveness.

          Until every obsolete conservative is replaced.

      2. You know who else believed in "better people"?

  10. So you losers, do you have to wait for the Order 66 or do you already have the OK to start shooting?

    1. Apedad, the hierarchy is STOPPING stuff -- there is a lot of "don't you dare"...

      Well, I'm giving up, a lot of people like me are giving up -- and walking away. At which point there will be no one to stomp on the crazies and, sadly, you don't need a gun to cause problems. 9-11 was done with box cutters...

      1. Are you actually claiming that you've been restraining people from violent behavior? To believe that, someone would have to be as delusional as—well, you.

          1. Ed, you're not one to play your cards close to your chest. We pretty much do know you. It's why you get so little respect on this forum.

          2. Tell them to think very carefully about exactly how to get away with it and what the impact will be. What lies will the news media tell about it?

            If they're talking to you about it, it's already a mistake. Talking about it is how you get caught.

      2. I think you're taking it too seriously. Trump would have won in a landslide except for a once-in-100-years pandemic. No amount of cheating and media lying would have mattered if we still had the 2019 economy.

        I also think you were taking it too seriously before. America is infested with these leftists who have basically dedicated themselves to evil. The people who vote with them are shallow narcissists, religious SJWs, environmentalist doomsday cultists, and their captive race-based voters.

        They keep doing the same stuff and keep getting more and more unhappy every time. It doesn’t work. Perhaps they will eventually learn.

        They also are really, really invested in the idea that they are The Good Guys. So point it out every time when they do obviously evil things, like coordinated lying and censorship about Hunter’s laptop, led by the corporate overlords they love (but pretend to be against — ha, ha) and the intelligence officials they blindly trust whenever it's something they want to hear.

        There's going to be another election in 2022 and the GOP has a better than 50% chance of winning a majority in both branches of congress. They won’t be able to cheat in 450 races and they won't have a pandemic to exploit to do it. The news media offer little genuine help because we all know every news report is a calculated propaganda effort. They won't be able to pass many bills between then and now either.

        And you shouldn't make your life about elections anyway.

        1. 600 children effectively orphaned by Trump's zero tolerance border policy.

          3,000 lives per day due to ignoring a pandemic instead of doing a little work.

          Yeah, tell us all about evil.

          1. Duh, but Trump! But Trump!

            Don't look at the evil we are doing, pay attention to this story we have to tell you instead.

            You guys encouraged people to try to sneak across the border with minor children. And now you get to exploit the problem you caused to try to distract from the other evil you intentionally commit every day.

  11. So reality wins the day. Now can we stop pretending that America is some kind of racist country and finally give up on the fact that global warming is nothing more then a sham designed to forward left wing policy?

  12. Do you think a society is in a good or bad place, if it's not interested in knowing/ pursuing the truth? Regardless of the outcome, who will accept it, if unfair?

    1. What are you going to do . . . cry louder? Whine more strenously? Whimper more aggressively? Rail and fail, mutter and sputter?

      Moan as much as you wish, but you will continue to toe the line established by your betters. Getting curb-stomped in the culture war has consequences. Bigots, superstitious rubes, and other conservatives hardest hit.

      1. Kiekland, think "lawyers cleaning sewers."

        1. If they are lucky...

          1. Your understanding of the economics and work of a lawyer is poor. My hourly rate is more than $10 a minute and will increase in a couple of weeks. Mostly, I talk on the telephone and write a few letters and reports. In a few months, I hope, I will resume conducting some In-person meetings and presentations. I guess you could say I’m cleaning up. I consider myself lucky.

            1. Kirkland, a lot of Chinese intellectuals considered themselves lucky circa 1960 -- and didn't a decade later.

              Revolutions invariably eat their children, neither BLM nor Antafa will suffer your earning $600/hour and they'll come for you as well. Like leftist. nihilist, anarchists inevitably do.

              And you think that Joe Sixpack will intervene on your behalf, that you still have a "social contract" with him?

              I don't.

              1. We just use Antifa and BLM to rile the clingers. We do that for sport.

              2. When the sewers back up and a Kirkland appears, you make a mistake trying to talk to it.

                Please do everyone a favor and ignore it until it disappears.

        2. I know the "e" key is right next to the "r" but darn that does not look like a good typo (if it was one...)

          1. Ouch.

            That's what I get for one-handed typing in bed.

            1. No worries. We all know what you are using the other hand for while you post here. I think we all had been assuming that you type your posts one-handed.

            2. Please feel free to not elaborate on what your other hand was doing.

  13. Unlike all too many GOP politicians, the conservative justices showed tonight that they are neither Trump toadies nor partisan hacks, and reaffirmed the Court's independence.

    Really? I don't see it that way. I see it as would-be right-wing hacks like Kavanaugh and Alito having enough sense to recognize a stink-bomb when they smell one. If you want to succeed as a partisan hack, you know you can't come into it smelling all smelly. Hackery is hard enough without getting stink all over it.

    1. Yeah, I think that's the point. A clear, slam dunk case is no time for a toady to toad. A smart partisan hack waits until there is at least semi-plausible window dressing for the hackery. So this case going 9-0 against Trump is not evidence for or against anyone's partisan hackery.

      But I agree upthread, most of the Justices are true believers in a judicial philosophy. Though that philosophy aligns with their political preference in most cases, I think they usually are ruling in good faith and earnest belief in their judicial philosophy rather than politics. But occasionally a case comes by that reveals how committed they are. Alito is the front-runner on the right and Sotomayor on the left for being most results oriented.

    2. I think there is a distinction between a Trump toady and a partisan hack. The conservative justices seem to consistently rule for the Republican Party when it's remotely feasible. It's just that they can't swallow utter nonsense.

      Both Rucho and Shelby County did great damage, and the Census case would have if Roberts hadn't been disgusted with the Administration's behavior.

      1. Absolutely agree. Rucho and Shelby County have rolled back voting rights substantially, particularly the latter. I don't see that the Republican appointees to the SC seem to have any real concern about voting rights generally and protection of the voting rights of minorities in particular. Kind of like Roberts' view, if we just stop talking about race, everything will be just fine. For white people.

    3. Really? I don’t see it that way. I see it as would-be right-wing hacks like Kavanaugh and Alito having enough sense to recognize a stink-bomb when they smell one. If you want to succeed as a partisan hack, you know you can’t come into it smelling all smelly. Hackery is hard enough without getting stink all over it.

      We may have previously assumed that, but I don't understand how the last four years failed to disabuse you of that notion. Trump and his minions show that just coming right out and saying FYTW has no consequences whatsoever. (See, e.g., impeachment.)

  14. To all my trump humping friends, just remember that Letitia James has already promised trump a day in court!

    1. It will be more like six months.

      Then sentencing.

      So much winning.

    2. Anyone with a retarded name like Letitia doesn't even warrant any consideration at all.

  15. You can debate the fraud that occurred during the election, how much there was, or the laws, but one thing that is beyond dispute is that no Democrat, Biden included, would ever stand a chance in an election if only the people the founders believed should be allowed to vote were allowed to vote.

    The Democrats cannot win without people the founders wisely knew should be prohibited from voting. Think about that.

    1. No women or non whites allowed to vote would mean GOP victory?

      And you think this is a good point to make?

    2. My favorite part of your open longing to return to a system in which only white, male property owners could vote is the "Think about that."

Please to post comments