Having now had two days since the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case between Texas against the four states whose elections rules were changed by their executive and or judicial branches, I am troubled. First, however, I thought I would inform my readers of sections specifically of the US Constitutions and some legal definitions. I inform because I first had to inform myself before writing this
First is Article III Section 2 paragraph 2 which reads:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Second, I call attention to Article II Section 1 paragraph 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding and Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
It seems to me the case that the Supreme Court made the decision not to hear centered upon these two paragraphs. The first paragraph provides the Supreme Court jurisdiction and responsibility and the second seems to be a valid argument to justify a hearing. However, all except two justices chose not to hear the case which I cannot find a justification for their actions in my mind.
In the Supreme Court response they said, “The State of Texas’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
So, looking up the legal meaning of standing I found the following definition on the freedicitionary.com which reads, “The legally protectable state or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.”
I will admit that I did not read Texas’ briefs provided to the Supreme Court and so cannot be sure of their arguments and for the sake of this post on what is otherwise an obscure blog in an obscure corner or the internet it does not matter. I say it does not matter because I am not a constitutional scholar nor am I an attorney. What I am is a practitioner of applied physics. A world in which, except on the fringes, the laws are absolute and work in nearly all applications that they are applied.
Looking at this and using the definition of standing I can agree that a state really does not have grounds to argue how another state’s legislature prescribes the way their electors are chosen. After all, as I typed above Article II states that a state’s Legislature may direct the way their electors are chosen. What I do not understand is in the contested states the state’s Judicial and Executive branches subverted or elaborated upon the manner which the electors are being chosen. In that case it does affect me because it crosses boundaries separating powers and is grossly unconstitutional and undermines and sets precedent for the same sorts of actions in my state. What the Supreme Court has essentially said is this is acceptable conduct in any state which makes me very uneasy.
Granted I am not a Constitutional scholar and the erudite students of law can probably come up with all sorts of reasons why the Supreme Court was justified in their decisions I cannot. To me it seems like s shirking of responsibility and displays a total disregard for the Constitution by the justices. In a time of struggle between judicial activism and a disputed and questionable election that threatens to destabilize and erode confidence in our Constitutional republic the Supreme Court Justices punted by saying their decision was based on merits but rather grounds. I for one would like to see an explanation of why the justices chose not to hear the case besides a curt two sentence statement.