Taken from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

can someone show me a case where the record shows a case being docketed and then later declined to be heard?

hmm looking back at the cases on the scotus homepage, it does show docketed preceeding petition granted

all very confusing, it would be great if robert would pop in and tell us whats up in a sentence or two lol

Yeppers. If they grant cert then they case will be heard.

I do not see an Order of Cert from the SC, yet.

Generally a Justice will review the complaint. He/She may then direct further filings (response, brief, whatever). When the Court reviews those filings they will decide whether or not to grand Cert.

Hmm.. So, in light of this ruling on the case in PA, it's likely they will not grant cert on the TX case. Am I understanding it right?

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-pennsylvania-tom-wolf-courts-0b7005328243eeca23f8bc3368549879?fbclid=IwAR3PQNlrJm5hAICfBYlVWQv3yt1GMIdlh0JIX9Jjajtp3Q7j086s5tLR6wA

Im not sure about how their electronic docketing system works. I dont think the fact that it made the electronic filing system/electronic docket that cert is granted. I just think its a way to keep up with the status. No cert, yet.

Oh wow.... that is news to me. the SCOTUS declined to take the case....

I honestly think that Texas is going to have standing problems so I sincerely doubt that gets heard

No, the denied the Kelly case

Texas case is docketed

Louisiana joined in w texas

Right... but I dont see an order granting Cert on the Texas case. It might happen but so far it has not

Read up... just because the case is listed on that website does not mean Cert has been granted.

They docketed Kelly's case, too.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

I know I'm incredibly late coming in, but I just have to say I'm so excited to see Ted cruz offering to present. I voted for him over trump the first time as a while in when I was protesting against trump (2016). I like how he thinks.

LOL... yikes

@Fefe if you look at @jfindley 's link it shows the same thing. That website just keeps tract of filings. It does not mean that the Court has accepted the case.

From the bit that I had read the best case that I have seen was the Kelly case. I still thought it would fail. But it was the best of the lot, imo.

so that doesnt bode well for the Texas case

Will we see a reason behind the Kelly case denial?

I feel like that would be something people would wanna know

They might with a case about the election. But generally its like a one or two sentence order saying "Cert denied"

I'm trying to find it, already 🙂

Yes. I agree. But generally when Cert is denied it means the court agreed with the lower court. In this case the PA Supreme Court.

It may be due to the Texas case being filed covering what was in the Kelly case was well as a wider array of issues with other states since there weren't any explanations or dissents that came with it.

@Fefe, you just advanced to level 1!

If you can believe the AP, the gist of it was that the outcome was unlikely to change anything, therefore, why waste our time?

That kinda makes me think the TX case has a shot, as it calls into question more than enough electoral votes to affect the outcome of the election, but that standing issue is probably going to require some real word-magic to convince people..

Certainly possible but I rather doubt it. Either the Kelly case had merit or it didn't.

They SCOTUS has combined similar cases hundreds or more likely thousands of times.

So if that was the case they would just join the cases and rule on them both

I'm pretty sure that the plain, obvious truth is that:
Trump -> Texas keeps its oil industry, and many other things
Biden -> Yeah, no... We're gonna screw you every which way we can.

isn't a good statement of "harm". The flaunting of the law would be a tough sell, as well, as a lot of this is a states-rights issue anyway.

Plus, WHO THE HELL IS TEXAS TO CRITICIZE ANYONE for flaunting the law? Are they forgetting the past year where they basically legislated from the Governor's office?

Interestingly contrary to what I have said about kelly case being dismissed, it was only denied injunctive relief.

Actually, one of my main hopes with a SCOTUS victory here would be my ability to sue the State of Texas for constitutional violations.

Well... the injunctive relief is critical. They wanted to enjoin PA from certifying the results and sending their Electors. Once that happens its over so far as any real relief

Where do you see that?

Ah, here it is:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

Yeah... so technically the case can continue through the normal process but the SCOTUS is not gonna do anything to stop the Certification of the PA vote and the sending of Electors.

But it does not look like the Court issued an order on whether or not the stuff surrounding Act 77 was Unconstitutional or not. It well could be. I think intelligent people can disagree on it.

But the Court seems to be making it clear that not certifying the election and thereby disenfranchising millions of voters is not on the table as a remedy. Which I wholeheartedly agree with

I respectfully disagree with that last one but we'll just have to wait and see where this whole thing goes

Legally speaking... I can not see an argument where disenfranchising millions for people who followed the law and cast their vote in a way prescribed by law and in good faith is the proper answer.

Remedies in law is to trying to make the plaintiff whole.... not to hurt others. That is not how equal protection works

The inverse could also be true, allowing for the certification of questionable results such as what we are seeing in an election where more than the required margin in many states is being disputed will disenfranchise those who cast their ballot fairly. There must be some remedy in these kinds of situations that exists

I.e signature matching, forensic audit of ballots, ect. which those elected refuse to do themselves and most courts won't allow for an evidentiary hearing due to procedural issues