Read on Twitter
I see a lot of people getting excited over the Trump legal team led by @RudyGiuliani filing a new PA suit with SCOTUS and it being placed on the docket.
Let me remind everyone how this script played out the last time.
Let me remind everyone how this script played out the last time.
SCOTUS punted the Texas case on a supposed process disqualification. They let Texas file the case, let the 4 state AG's file their responses as to why the case should not proceed, then SCOTUS told Texas they had no standing to sue and dismissed.
This time only PA State AG @JoshShapiroPA has to respond, and he's likely going to stick to the response that worked the last time: urging the SCOTUS to dismiss the case because the Trump legal team has no standing to file a lawsuit.
So I see a lot of people getting very excited that the Trump legal team filed, it was put on the docket and they seem to think the SCOTUS is going to hear the case before Jan. 6.
What's far more likely to happen is when PA AG Josh Shapiro files his response just as he did in the Texas case, the SCOTUS is going to agree with him that the Trump legal team has no standing to sue and dismiss the case.
The only silver lining I see: this time Rudy G & team did their homework and filed this suit based on the Bush vs. Gore precedent in 2000.
The TX case relied heavily on claims about the Constitution.
Rudy G. is appealing to SCOTUS precedent.
The TX case relied heavily on claims about the Constitution.
Rudy G. is appealing to SCOTUS precedent.
If SCOTUS rules the Trump legal team has no standing to sue, the justices must explain how the Bush vs. Gore precedent does not apply to this current federal election dispute.
If the SCOTUS can't reasonably explain how the Bush v Gore precedent does not apply to the present federal election dispute, that is going to raise a glaring contradiction.
SCOTUS not only heard the Bush vs. Gore case in 2000, they ruled in Bush's favor.
SCOTUS not only heard the Bush vs. Gore case in 2000, they ruled in Bush's favor.
So SCOTUS has 3 ways to go:
1) process DQ of suit over 'no standing = must explain why B v G in 2000 does not apply
2) hears case, rules in PA favor = contradicts B v Gore rulling in 2000
3) hears case, rules in Trump's favor = B v Gore precedent affirmed
1) process DQ of suit over 'no standing = must explain why B v G in 2000 does not apply
2) hears case, rules in PA favor = contradicts B v Gore rulling in 2000
3) hears case, rules in Trump's favor = B v Gore precedent affirmed
If SCOTUS picks door #1 or door #2, they're forced to revisit B v. G in a way they have to explain why it does not apply or why they are overturning that precedent.
