Our long national nightmare is over

[Scooter]

[BoSoxGal]

That would be better if it had the current bench.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I can't believe I'm typing this but . . .

the President turns out to be correct!

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!
10:28 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

[Guinevere]

I think it means that as long as the complaint is in the form of an action by one state against the other, they'd allow it to be filed, but would deny the requests for emergency action to invalidate any election results. And because they would not proceed to the merits at this point, they wouldn't offer any opinion on the merits in any event.

Yes. I think it also means that those two (who believe the Court should take every original jurisdiction filed, but which is against the weight of the precedent) agree with the other 7 that there is no standing.

To finish the law class...
In original jurisdiction cases, as opposed to certiorari cases, the Supreme Court actually acts as a trial court rather than an appellate court. The limited number of cases that qualify for original jurisdiction are set forth in Article III:

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. United States Constitution Article III, § cl. 2

I believe the dissenters theory is that like a trial court, SCOTUS must accept all filings seeking original jurisdiction. Then, the Court would decide motions to dismiss on the standing issue (standing is required to maintain a suit in court. It requires, among other things, that the plaintiff allege particularized harm or injury, and also injury which the Court is capable of addressing). However, the cases on original jurisdiction, I believe, say that because a party must still petition for original jurisdiction (as distinguished from an actual trial court, where, for the most part, all filings must be excepted), the Court may deny such petitions. That’s what happened here, by a 7-2 vote. However, all 9 justices agreed there was not standing to proceed further, even if the petition for jurisdiction was accepted.

And finally, a fun little piece on original jurisdiction “standings.” (That’s a pun there, folks)

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/vie ... cholarship

[Gob]

What a way to run a fucking country...

[Guinevere]

Says the man who is subject to a hereditary monarchy, which has the power to dissolve the elected legislature.

Yeah, we’re all good here.

[Gob]

Yes, but being a civilised country, with a head of state who is neither a rabid,self obsessed, lying, lunatic, nor an utter fucking moron, like those you chose to rule, we're quit content with Brenda thanks.



USA: "Swap you?"
UK: "Nah, we're good thanks..."

[ex-khobar Andy]

[Big RR]

Wait for King Charles III and Queen Camilla and we'll see how happy everyone is. And, like most countries, throughout your history you've had you share of despotic, idiotic, even insane heads of state who could not be removed that easily.

And FWIW, as the USSC actions showed, the US system works, despite all its flaws.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Wait for King Charles III and Queen Camilla and we'll see how happy everyone is. And, like most countries, throughout your history you've had you share of despotic (well I suppose so; but the last true despot was Charles I and we removed his head for him), idiotic (Edward VIII comes to mind: so Parliament forced him to abdicate), even insane (George III - but once it was established that he was in fact bonkers - up to that point he had not been a bad king, as kings go - we put together a Regency to rule in his place) heads of state who could not be removed that easily.

And FWIW, as the USSC actions showed, the US system works, despite all its flaws. Really???? The last four years showed that the system worked??? The notion of power being held by a Senate in which California's 40,000,000 people have the same representation as Wyoming's 600,000 (and BTW in which DC's 700,000 have zero representation) is farcical. And Senator McConnell for whom about 1,200,000 of my neighbors voted (sorry about that) has the ability to say to a president - no, we won't even discuss your nomination for SC??? And to top it off, despite what was so clearly a Biden victory, it took that SCOTUS to say, yup, black is black and white is white. So ordered.

On the subject of King Charles III (or whatever regnal name he chooses - he could be Homer I if he wants) (I rather like LeRoy I - it has the benefit of some etymological justification) I'm with you. I think that most of the British public hope that Philip will rise from his nonagenerian slumber and pull off one last assassination and give William a clear path to the throne.

Edited to correct a typo.

[Burning Petard]

The college of electors meets virtually Monday and then Biden is official. But the current POTUS, if his past behavior is indicative, will not accept it. Will he declare MARTIAL LAW? I am pretty sure I know about as much as Trump does about what that means (next to nothing). But I have two questions: If we are under martial law, may I ignore traffic cops who do not have an MP arm band? But more important to me personally, if I have an open and frank exchange with my neighbor as to who has the most beautiful and tasteful holiday decorations on display on the front of our homes, and it results in both of us removing some of the other's decorations and then we engage in beating each other with six-foot peppermint canes, will I be arrested and tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946) ?

snailgate

[Joe Guy]

The idea of the president declaring martial law makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm wrong but the idea of martial law is to deal with civil disorder and the only potential civil disorder will potentially be caused by the people who want martial law to be declared.

[Econoline]

On the subject of King Charles III (or whatever regnal name he chooses - he could be Homer I if he wants) (I rather like LeRoy I - it has the benefit of some etymological justification)

In a discussion of this with Lord Jim some time ago, I suggested that he choose "Elizabeth III"—to help him achieve, perhaps, a bit more popularity.





ETA: if he really wants to show his wisdom, he could abdicate in favor of his son, immediately after ascending the throne.
(Or maybe abdicate in favor of abolishing the monarchy? Now, that would REALLY ensure him a prominent place in British history! )

[BoSoxGal]

Given that the UK is doubtless going to spend the next decade recovering from economic depression, I think Charles might want to bear in mind the short reign he has to look forward to and whether it’s right and proper to ask his subjects to bear the cost of all the pomp and pageantry of a coronation for him. Fact is, he is very much disliked still by many of his subjects whilst Wills and Kate are very popular. The better choice to lock in popular support for the monarchy going forward would be to let Wills take the throne.

I also agree that moving on from monarchy would be positive for the UK (and all countries), but I highly doubt that shift will ever come from within the royal families.

[Gob]

Wait for King Charles III and Queen Camilla and we'll see how happy everyone is. And, like most countries, throughout your history you've had you share of despotic, idiotic, even insane heads of state who could not be removed that easily.

Not for a century or more, and Chas and Cammy won't be around too long.

[Gob]

ETA: if he really wants to show his wisdom, he could abdicate in favor of his son, immediately after ascending the throne.

There's a grat deal of hope here that that will happen.

(Or maybe abdicate in favor of abolishing the monarchy? Now, that would REALLY ensure him a prominent place in British history! )

Not going to happen, we'eve seen what happens when people get to vote on heads of state, head with powers for other than ceremonial purpose, George "Chimpy" Bush, Donald "lunatic" Trump, Justin "blackface" Trudeau, Emanuel "Biddy fiddler" Macron.

Dear god, we could end up with President Farage, or Blair, or Cameron!!

[Gob]

President-elect Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden failed to disclose $400,000 in payments from Ukrainian energy company Burisma on his 2014 tax returns, according to an email from his notorious subpoenaed laptop.

Eric Schwerin, president of Biden's firm Rosemont Seneca, sent the email on January 16, 2017, noting that Hunter Biden's total income for 2014 was more than $1.2 million, according to NBC News.

It follows confirmation earlier this week that the Justice Department is investigating Hunter Biden's tax matters, including his lucrative dealings with China.

More

[ex-khobar Andy]

A piece in the Atlantic about SCOTUS is worrying. Essentially, the author is saying that their decision on Texas v. Pennsylvania et al was so fucking obvious - they had nowhere to go which would not make them look like total idiots - but nevertheless has bought them some credibility among even some of the more liberal among us. "See - the system works!"

On December 11 . . . Rich Lowry [National Review] triumphantly praised Trump-appointed judges for demonstrating a “commitment to facts, reason and the law” as litigation unfolded. “With the president of the United States raging at our electoral system and desperately seeking assistance from the courts, the alleged partisanship and corruption of the Trump-influenced judiciary has been nowhere in evidence,” he wrote.

Well yes: even Trump-appointed justices are not able to say with a straight face that lead is gold or that black is white or indeed that Wednesday is the next day after Monday. The "alleged partisanship and corruption of the Trump-influenced judiciary" will be very much in evidence when they can make a plausible (to some) case that there are two sides to an argument.

We know that already from a couple of the cases which popped up prior to the election. Kavanaugh in DNC v. Wisconsin was worried that allowing postal votes, postmarked on or before Election Day but received a few days afterwards, might 'flip' an election and therefore should not be allowed. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out the stupidity of this concern in a footnote to her dissent:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH alleges that “suspicions of impropriety” will result if “absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” Ante, at 7. But there are no results to “flip” until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more “suspicio[us]” or “improp[er]” than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process.

You might as well say that results from zip code VWXYZ could potentially flip the results of an election and so should not be allowed.

There's more. Read the piece - it'll take you ten minutes.

[Sue U]

To finish the law class...
In original jurisdiction cases, as opposed to certiorari cases, the Supreme Court actually acts as a trial court rather than an appellate court.

See, this is the real reason they kicked this case. Can you imagine the pre-trial case management, let alone the trial itself? Every one of the justices said,"FOH with that, I am *not* having this whackadoodle clown show in *my* courtroom!"

[ex-khobar Andy]

From today's Daily Mail:


Trump said the Supreme Court (pictured) 'chickened out' by deciding not to hear a Texas case seeking to overturn Biden's win

I suppose it's ahead of Scooter's picture.