ACP45 wrote:
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction applies to cases involving disputes between states. Dismissal of the case for the reason of "Standing" is a ticky-tack way of having to avoid making a decision. From an equal protection viewpoint, the Court could have heard the case, and I think they should have. Texas claimed their v**ers were in fact harmed by having their v**es offset or diluted by v**es from the 4 sued states that did not follow their own e******n laws, which no one can deny.
Now, having said that, many on the left think this is over and done with, and that SCOTUS is now out of the picture. Maybe they are right. Or, maybe 5 of the judges are waiting for a case or cases that do not have the taint of "Standing" associated with it. Let us see if one of these cases is accepted by the SCOTUS which under settled law clearly state that “FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING”. If the court accepts such a case, and the plaintiff is allowed to present ALL the evidence of Fraud that has already been uncovered, or will be uncovered by the DNI report due by 12-18, everything changes.
The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction applies ... (
show quote)
It may have been the easy way to get out of making a decision. The whole idea of the supreme court is to interpret the case in accordance to the Constitution. Also whenever the case is brought up to them they also rule on why that case was sent to them. And according to the report there wasn't anything there.