The Homa Files

To be fair & balanced …

Yesterday, we argued that SCOTUS is caught between a rock and a hard place… and would create a legal nightmare if they didn’t rule the actions of the 4 “defendant states” to be unconstitutional.

Today, the WSJ editorializes that the SCOTUS shouldn’t even take the Texas law suit.

Here’s an excerpt from the editorial:

Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, launched an implausible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn state presidential election results.

It would be a legal and political earthquake if the Court took the case.

The first issue is whether Texas has the legal standing to sue.

To have standing, a plaintiff must point to a specific injury and there must be some possibility of a remedy.

In this case, what is the injury?

Mr. Paxton argues that the four states have harmed his state and violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution by holding elections with major procedural irregularities. He’s saying Texas can be harmed by the way another state manages its elections.

But if Texas can sue on these grounds, then some unhappy state will sue another state after every close election whose outcome it doesn’t like.

Then there’s the problem of remedy. Mr. Paxton wants the Court to intervene and order the four state legislatures to deny Mr. Biden their electoral votes. He claims, with some justification, that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors.

But that is what they have done already in certifying their votes.

In other words, Mr. Paxton’s claim is essentially moot as the states have certified their results and chosen electors.

There’s no doubt that Democrats used the pandemic as an excuse to expand mail-in voting that created more opportunities for fraud.

But the GOP should have fought those changes more competently before the election.

To take Mr. Paxton’s case the Court would have to set a new standard for standing to sue in election cases and essentially overturn the election results in four states and disenfranchise millions of voters.

The Justices would be opening an historic constitutional thicket if they take it.

What do you think?

This entry was posted on December 11, 2020 at 10:00 am and is filed under 2020 Presidential Campaign. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.