Message from @zola
Discord ID: 786132048435085334
the key is looking through old court cases to see if the lawsuit can be vindicated through old court cases that were already settled (i believe there have been)
and scotus will probably just use those old court cases as the remedy
I believe there is precedent
But idk what it is
And because they'll have original jurisdiction they can introduce new evidence
scotus is an appeal court
election laws are state related, they usually dont like taking up cases that are state related and will likely push it back down
or find another remedy to avoid without an actual appeal first
if scotus does take on the case as first instance, that'll be the first. and a lot of these left wing media will start saying they overthrew the election
actually i need to stop, i dont know a lot, so anything can happen
lets hope texas win, but its a long shotr
I'm not very optimistic either, but I keep a sliver of hope in me
Scotus almost always works in an appellate jurisdiction
This is@not an appellate situation
Again, it's an original jurisdiction
And state vs Tate in a federal election manner changes the state relationship bit
The jurisdiction part should clear it up
im not arguing if they have original jurisdiction or not, they do
it goes to the SCOTUS without an appeal
but what im saying is
SCOTUS, hardly, if ever, accepts a first instance trial
you will never find in SCOTUS some sort of first instance trial on evidence, etc...
Most aren't state v state
This is the rate instance
Rare
The second link is super in depth
ill check it out
@zola here
```In the late twentieth century, the Supreme Court further limited its original docket by declaring that it would exercise discretion over whether to hear cases even if they were legitimately within the Court's jurisdiction. In a series of cases in 1971, including Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp ., the Court declined to hear environmental pollution claims brought by states against corporations that dealt with complex and technical factual questions. The justices ruled that the states had other available forums to bring their claims and that the cases were not "appropriate" for the Court in light of its primary function as the nation's highest appellate tribunal. The Court resolved to examine the "seriousness and dignity" of claims so as to preserve its resources for consideration of appeals involving federal questions. The Supreme Court soon expanded its appropriateness doctrine to decline to hear some cases between two states, even where the Court's jurisdiction was exclusive.```
they dont need to take it
they can send it right back down to the lower courts
even if it involves 2 states
The exception to that is sTate v tate
That's company v state
did you read the entire thing?
Yes why would you assume I didnt
its up to SCOTUS to decide if they want to take it or not, "appropriateness doctrine"