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

There is an assumption built into your position "questionable results" and problems that would switch the results. I have yet to see any reliable evidence of that...

And again... you have to establish that the other folks votes were not counted.

And nothing like that has happened

"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"

That does not and should not automatically kick in simply because someone is not happy with the results.

This isn't simply about people being "Unhappy". There are thousands of affiants and many expert witnesses who have testified on a myriad of issues regarding the electoral process this year. You can also take a look at Matt Braynard's compelling analysis if you want something more "reliable". When you're met with all of this, ask yourself why there is such adversity as to clear up the whole matter with a simple signature audit of the votes (ex. GAsec. has lied promising to do this many times and has not despite many concerns that grow everyday) or a forensic audit that would solidify Biden's win and leave no room for argument? Instead you have many leaders in these states rushing to certify results and ignore the concerns of their citizens. Until people know for certain that this was a "free and fair election" rather than relying on the word of those in charge who would be responsible, I will remain skeptical and stand by those who want answers.

@Fefe, you just advanced to level 2!

Link to Matt Braynard's findings here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH9ihoLi1NA&feature=emb_title

@shahtirth94 LA County has a population that is greater than that of 41 individual U.S. states.

That's ashame.

Thought we could all use a laugh

I know the Dominion thing is a bit of a red herring

It's that they didn't verify signatures and voter rolls

So, with 18 states joining in on the Texas suit against GA, PA, MI, and WI, what weight (if any) does that add to the suit in general?

It certainly shows SCOTUS that more States agree with the filing than just Texas.

@jfindley

and the amount of electoral votes those States represent is pretty high

Arizona just joined it

Source?

@Discopainter joined what?