Read on Twitter
FWIW Errors in Defendants' Briefs
~PA et al claim the TX complaint have been heard and rejected by other state/federal courts.
~On that basis, they claim, there is no purpose served in SCOTUS allowing Texas to relitigate matters already decided.
~PA et al claim the TX complaint have been heard and rejected by other state/federal courts.
~On that basis, they claim, there is no purpose served in SCOTUS allowing Texas to relitigate matters already decided.
The problem with this argument is:
~1) Texas was *not* a litigant in *any* of those other proceedings. None.
~2) Cases of original jurisdiction are based upon evidence presented to the Court in the first instance and *not* bound by a factual record created in a lower court.
~1) Texas was *not* a litigant in *any* of those other proceedings. None.
~2) Cases of original jurisdiction are based upon evidence presented to the Court in the first instance and *not* bound by a factual record created in a lower court.
3) Moreover, outcomes of the lower courts were not decisions on the merits, but decisions based upon procedure.
Texas (and are co-plaintiffs and those which filed ABs) are on very sound legal ground IMHO. I have seen others concur.
Texas (and are co-plaintiffs and those which filed ABs) are on very sound legal ground IMHO. I have seen others concur.
Takes me a while to read everything and then edit material into a concise thread so my followers can benefit from it.
Add in staying up on events — it takes me a while sometimes.
Sorry for the delay!
Turn on alerts! Follow me 2 @Maximus_Legacy.
Parler @Maximus4EVR
Add in staying up on events — it takes me a while sometimes.
Sorry for the delay!
Turn on alerts! Follow me 2 @Maximus_Legacy.
Parler @Maximus4EVR
