[RD] Can SCOTUS do its job?

[Camikaze]

It isn't beyond SCOTUS capacity to rule that the judicial bodies of states doing a role the constitutions define to their legislatures is inconsistent with the constitution. What you are saying is part of the multi-step cycle that makes it impossible to challenge election processes no matter how ridiculous they are. They had a case and they could have taken it..

SCOTUS can't just decree constitutional law in a vacuum. They must have a live "case or controversy". A "case" is not just a theoretical question which someone has thought up. It is an adversarial process in which there is an ongoing conflict in respect of which powers of actual effect can be exercised. It may well be that there has been a constitutional wrong somewhere, but without a remedy for a particular "case or controversy", SCOTUS (along with other judicial bodies) lacks jurisdiction to perform any function.

I mean that's not the only way of going about having a Court, but this is something you're going to have to take up with the founders who limited Article III courts in that way. To suggest otherwise would be to again take an extreme anti-originalist position.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

SCOTUS can't just decree constitutional law in a vacuum. They must have a live "case or controversy". A "case" is not just a theoretical question which someone has thought up. It is an adversarial process in which there is an ongoing conflict in respect of which powers of actual effect can be exercised. It may well be that there has been a constitutional wrong somewhere, but without a remedy for a particular "case or controversy", SCOTUS (along with other judicial bodies) lacks jurisdiction to perform any function.

I mean that's not the only way of going about having a Court, but this is something you're going to have to take up with the founders who limited Article III courts in that way. To suggest otherwise would be to again take an extreme anti-originalist position.

This isn't a vacuum. They had a live case brought before them. That's why there was even a possibility to write a dissenting opinion.

Dismissal on "mootness" for elections is bogus. You know who else says so? Decades of past rulings by...SCOTUS. Only this time is an election case "moot" somehow. Trumps appointees backstabbed the entire country.

How is there not a remedy when the state violates its law?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Perhaps Trump lawyers should have asked for a different remedy than throwing out millions of legally cast votes because of a few dozen questionable ones.

Those rule violations (typically accommodations making it easier to vote because of the unusual circumstances of the pandemic), were done in many areas (rural, urban, republican leaning, democrat leaning, etc.), not just democrat leaning urban areas. But the 'remedy' proposed by Trump lawyers were to either (depending on the specific lawsuit) void ALL votes in ONLY democrat leaning urban areas or all votes in the entire state and have the state's votes determined by a vote in the state's legislature (that is controlled by republicans). Almost happened in Wisconsin if not for 1 sane Conservative who sided with the Liberals.

There is some irony in Trumpers complaining of cases being tossed over technicalities, when they wanted to disenfranchise millions of voters over technicalities.

 

[Samson]

Wisconsin if not for 1 sane Conservative who sided with the Liberals

I guess this is the story? Absolute madness, and terrible but unsurprising that he is now suffering for it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Perhaps Trump lawyers should have asked for a different remedy than throwing out millions of legally cast votes because of a few dozen questionable ones.

Those rule violations (typically accommodations making it easier to vote because of the unusual circumstances of the pandemic), were done in many areas (rural, urban, republican leaning, democrat leaning, etc.), not just democrat leaning urban areas. But the 'remedy' proposed by Trump lawyers were to either (depending on the specific lawsuit) void ALL votes in ONLY democrat leaning urban areas or all votes in the entire state and have the state's votes determined by the a vote in the state's legislature (that is controlled by republicans). Almost happened in Wisconsin if not for 1 sane Conservative who sided with the Liberals.

There is some irony in Trumpers complaining of cases being tossed over technicalities, when they wanted to disenfranchise millions of voters over technicalities.

I don't care what the Trump suits ask for at this point because the election is over. The remedy that is still relevant is the consequences seen when someone violates the law. Which is what happened when states changed the rules w/o going through their legislatures. It is both inaccurate and a complete break from precedent to hide behind "mootness" in the context of any election case. SCOTUS could easily clarify the law regarding this part of the constitution, and should have.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This isn't a vacuum. They had a live case brought before them. That's why there was even a possibility to write a dissenting opinion.

Dismissal on "mootness" for elections is bogus. You know who else says so? Decades of past rulings by...SCOTUS. Only this time is an election case "moot" somehow. Trumps appointees backstabbed the entire country.

How is there not a remedy when the state violates its law?

I don't care what the Trump suits ask for at this point because the election is over. The remedy that is still relevant is the consequences seen when someone violates the law. Which is what happened when states changed the rules w/o going through their legislatures. It is both inaccurate and a complete break from precedent to hide behind "mootness" in the context of any election case. SCOTUS could easily clarify the law regarding this part of the constitution, and should have.

You are entitled to your opinion but SCOTUS is also entitled to theirs. SCOTUS decisions can be narrow or broad and broad decisions can have an impact for decades or longer. narrow ones can be much less impactful. By choosing "mootness" SCOTUS might have been saying that a narrow decision in the PA case would be pointless since the election was over and that a broad decision didn't meet their criteria for intervention.

Factors the Court Considers When Choosing Cases

Every year, the Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for certiorari, but only hears about 80 of them. While no one really knows why some cases get heard but others do not, the Supreme Court has several factors that it considers when deciding what cases to hear:

1. The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law: The U.S. judicial system consists of 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts. When a number of these courts reach different conclusions about an issue of federal or constitutional law, the Supreme Court may step in and decide the law so that all areas of the country can then operate under the same law.
2. The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000), or a case with an important social issue, such as abortion in Roe v. Wade.
3. The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices' Interests: Sometimes Justices give preference to cases that decide an issue in their favorite area of law.
4. The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions: If a lower court blatantly disregards a past Supreme Court decision, the court may hear the case to correct the lower court, or alternatively, simply overrule the case without comment.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are entitled to your opinion but SCOTUS is also entitled to theirs. SCOTUS decisions can be narrow or broad and broad decisions can have an impact for decades or longer. narrow ones can be much less impactful.

What rules are allowed to change & when for the selection of POTUS has broad impact, and was part of the original agreement between states that allowed USA to exist in its present form. SCOTUS doesn't have an apparent mandate forcing it to do its job, so it can duck this responsibility. The result is threads like this + loss of faith in it, insofar as it has/had any.

By choosing "mootness" SCOTUS might have been saying that a narrow decision in the PA case would be pointless since the election was over and that a broad decision didn't meet their criteria for intervention.

Mootness is, by SCOTUS own precedent, not valid regarding elections because there's a general presumption that the issue could arise in future elections. Now is the best time to address the problem, not during the next cycle where someone is again going to blather about no damages/standing and ignore merits.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What rules are allowed to change & when for the selection of POTUS has broad impact, and was part of the original agreement between states that allowed USA to exist in its present form. SCOTUS doesn't have an apparent mandate forcing it to do its job, so it can duck this responsibility. The result is threads like this + loss of faith in it, insofar as it has/had any.

Mootness is, by SCOTUS own precedent, not valid regarding elections because there's a general presumption that the issue could arise in future elections. Now is the best time to address the problem, not during the next cycle where someone is again going to blather about no damages/standing and ignore merits.

What is the job of SCOTUS? Who are you to tell the court that they are being irresponsible about the cases they choose to hear?

A general presumption by whom? Those for whom the case was dismissed? Sour grapes more likely. The election was over and the results determined, there was no reason to take the case and ruling on the case would not change the outcome. There was no upside to doing so. 2020 had a sufficient number of oddities about it that it might not have been seen as general enough to warrant action. Sometimes not setting a precedent is the right choice. Hopefully we won't see another pandemic for 100 years.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What is the job of SCOTUS? Who are you to tell the court that they are being irresponsible about the cases they choose to hear?

A US citizen.

A general presumption by whom?

We SHOULD generally presume there will be future elections. Actual SCOTUS (and below) case history suggests the elections are straight up an exception to "mootness" for the reasons laid out in the dissenting document in the opening post of this thread. If you think the rationale presented by the dissenting opinions is unsound, I'd be interested in hearing why.

"Hoping this violation of law doesn't happen again" is not a viable strategy for anybody, let alone a court of law.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A US citizen.

We SHOULD generally presume there will be future elections. Actual SCOTUS (and below) case history suggests the elections are straight up an exception to "mootness" for the reasons laid out in the dissenting document in the opening post of this thread. If you think the rationale presented by the dissenting opinions is unsound, I'd be interested in hearing why.

"Hoping this violation of law doesn't happen again" is not a viable strategy for anybody, let alone a court of law.

What I think about Thomas's dissent is irrelevant. The other SC judges disagreed with him They did not write an elaborate brief defending their choice so we have only heard one side of the story. You can only quote what Thomas wrote, not the other side. 8-1 is a hefty majority of legal thinking disagreeing with Thomas. BTW, I did read his entire dissent.

 

[Camikaze]

This isn't a vacuum. They had a live case brought before them.

I don't care what the Trump suits ask for at this point because the election is over.

These two statements are in fundamental conflict. A case or controversy is defined by a remedy. A case without a remedy is an inquiry. The American judicial system is not inquisitorial.

In this particular case, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari. This is a writ which runs to a decision-maker, quashing the decision-maker's decision (though I'm not sure if a writ of mandamus accompanies the writ of certiorari if ultimately allowed). It is a fundamental principle when issuing prerogative writs that the writ be capable of having some practical effect. The court below made orders concerning the extension of the ballot deadline. It is now impossible for any alternative orders to be made via remittal, mandamus, or otherwise.

What you are instead seeking is for the Court to declare that the court below was right or wrong, but with no practical consequence flowing from that decision. That would be the making of a declaration, not the granting of a writ of certiorari, as was sought by the petitioner. You are suggesting the Court should have entertained the granting of something that the petitioning party before it was not seeking.

In any case, declataroy relief doesn't exist in the abstract, but requires a justiciable controversy. Otherwise it is saying something about nothing.

 

[cardgame]

Very debatable, but out of scope for the purposes of this thread.

It's not debateable, it's a matter of fact.

If you want to post clown car trash not relevant to the topic, I believe we already have a thread dedicated to that purpose.

please stop posting clown car trash threads, we already have a thread dedicated to that purpose.

Moderator Action: This one here is an RD thread, however, so please stay on topic. Thank you. ~ Yeekim

 

[Lexicus]

and the impact this has on voters at both the state and national level.

What impact? Allowing people to vote without putting them in danger of contracting a deadly disease?
"I really wanted one candidate to win but he didn't" isn't a real impact.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What I think about Thomas's dissent is irrelevant. The other SC judges disagreed with him They did not write an elaborate brief defending their choice so we have only heard one side of the story. You can only quote what Thomas wrote, not the other side. 8-1 is a hefty majority of legal thinking disagreeing with Thomas. BTW, I did read his entire dissent.

Maybe not too carefully, since the decision was not 8-1 :/.

These two statements are in fundamental conflict. A case or controversy is defined by a remedy. A case without a remedy is an inquiry. The American judicial system is not inquisitorial.

What is the remedy when a government institution breaks the law? The answer can't be "none". That's the remedy in question here.

What you are instead seeking is for the Court to declare that the court below was right or wrong, but with no practical consequence flowing from that decision.

??? Surely having a state not be allowed to act on the rules used in 2020 and to rule that similar actions in the future are invalid is a different practical consequence than doing nothing? How is this different from other times SCOTUS has ruled that laws/actions taken by a state are unconstitutional? How can this scenario possibly be dismissed as "moot" if we have future elections?

 

[Samson]

What is the remedy when a government institution breaks the law? The answer can't be "none". That's the remedy in question here.

What remedy are you suggesting?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What remedy are you suggesting?

I gave a brief summary of the practical remedy a little later in the same post.

 

[Samson]

I gave a brief summary of the practical remedy a little later in the same post.

This bit?

??? Surely having a state not be allowed to act on the rules used in 2020 and to rule that similar actions in the future are invalid is a different practical consequence than doing nothing? How is this different from other times SCOTUS has ruled that laws/actions taken by a state are unconstitutional? How can this scenario possibly be dismissed as "moot" if we have future elections?

So you are suggesting that a supreme court decision that in the future election law can only be changed by the legislature would provide justice to the people who lost out this time? Is it not about as likely to go the other way?

 

[Lexicus]

Not sure if it's been brought up, but this idea that states 'went against their own laws' in the 2020 election is nonsense. Governors acted under authority delegated to them by the legislature in emergency powers laws. Nothing illegal about this.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So you are suggesting that a supreme court decision that in the future election law can only be changed by the legislature would provide justice to the people who lost out this time? Is it not about as likely to go the other way?

Yes, mostly because that ruling is consistent with exactly what the constitution already says. I don't know how you provide justice this time around beyond that, unless you want to punish people who broke the law in some way. But ruling that things done illegally won't count/will be unenforceable in future elections would still be useful.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe not too carefully, since the decision was not 8-1 :/.

Thomas was the only written dissent and he did not mention Gorsuch. So I assumed. 7-2 is still a hefty majority. If your defense against my posts is that I said 8-1 rather than 7-2, then you have lost the argument.

You should just read Cami's posts. The truth is there.