Mess with Texas?

How might the Supreme Court respond to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit contesting the ...

By
13

How might the Supreme Court respond to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit contesting the results of the election? Why did so many House members and state attorneys general file amicus briefs in support of the lawsuit? Is Paxton’s legal effort just a political stunt? On today’s episode, Sarah and Steve are joined by Ilya Shapiro—director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and publisher of the Cato Supreme Court Review—for the breakdown.

Show Notes:

-Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s new lawsuit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

-106 House Republicans sign amicus brief supporting Texas lawsuit and Chip Roy’s tweet thread explaining why he will not join Texas’s lawsuit.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

By
Comments (13)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Andrew Smith

    I can't believe nobody else has called B.S. on Steve claiming that he'd move to Mars. There's no way Spanish Wines would be available during the first wave of colonization.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    William Miller

    I would add to the list of some of the names of House members that I was surprised and disappointed added their names to this list, I would add Dan Crenshaw.

    I was definitely disheartened to see his name there.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    James Spiller

    It seems regrettable to me that so many people, including, so far as I can tell, every single member of the Dispatch, treating the Amicus as if it is synonymous with the lawsuit. David, for instance, gets mad at the Amici for not respecting the problems with standing.

    The Amicus does not address standing. David conflates the two, and then attacks Congressmen for a position they do not claim and most do not hold.

    This is precisely why we have amici; bad facts make for bad law, and bad litigants worse. In order to limit the harm, we let people who want a debate about principles make their points without suggesting guilt by association with the rotten parties they’re aligned with for the purposes of that point.

    I’m not suggesting that the Amicus is awesome, but it is vastly less bad than the lawsuit and avoids 9/10 of the problems that David and Sarah raise with it. I’m disappointed by the analysis that seems to work on the basis of condemning people for which team they’re on rather than for the positions that they take.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      I think this is fair.

      Too much of The Dispatch and readership get mad at legal proceedings/procedure that will be legally shot down.

      As we see evidently here.

      All states, lawyers, etc., can bring the evidence they want. If it’s true, it will be tested in court. If false or plain stupid, it will be rejected.

      It’s why I have zero complaints about the lawsuits. Yes, it makes those filing them look bad. Yes, it leads to many misunderstandings, false claims, and grift.

      But what is being done is legal.

      When there is nothing left legally standing, and all that’s left is innuendo about a stolen election, conspiracies die the death of a thousand among reasonable and normal people.

      After all, almost everyone rolls their eyes at Birtherism today.

      There will be a swath of Alex Jones types believing the election was still stolen. Just as so many still believe 9-11 was a false flag operation, JFK was a CIA operation to kill him, or that we did not land on the moon or the earth is flat.

      The take away in the future will be an election was challenged legally and legally demolished.

      Let them go through the motions and amicus briefs, as lawyers jobs typically is to look for every which way to get their client off the hook or victory.

      So I have not lost one bit of faith in the courts over this situation, and have been honestly yawning at the outrage.

      Because none of this ever seriously put democracy in peril.

      So let the Amicus go forward. The laws in good hands. And have a merry Christmas James!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        James Spiller

        I’m more irked by the legal proceedings than you.

        I agree that it’s better than Stacy Abrams’ approach, and that it’s legal. But that is also true of most things, many of which are awful.

        The dignity of the office of the presidency is important. Both in foreign affairs and domestic, it matters that we can trust the President. Integrity lowers the cost of capital, superpowers don’t bluff, all that sort of thing. It could cost untold lives that we’ve had a Presidentially endorsed effort telling the world about a North Korean effort to smuggle ballots to Maine. It didn’t put democracy in peril, just the dignity of our political institutions.

        But not everyone on the wrong side is similarly villainous. This is true in almost every political fight. It is super important to evaluate people as individuals rather than to make everything a simple partisan contest between our side and the bad guys (with teams sometimes being defined ad hoc).

        Merry Christmas, but hopefully we’ll talk again before then!

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    The Supreme Court shot down texas lawsuit.

    As me, and others (and The Dispatch) predicted.

    America is fine. No, the republicans with all their noise and suits, will not start a war.

    Prepare for the Biden administration and all the much needed reporting that may be in short supply, sadly like the Obama years.

    Hope the press proves me wrong.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Leticia Vega

    David, Sarah: Am I reading this correctly? All justices denied cert; seven denied on a procedural grounds. Alito and Thomas would have heard the argument (and called their bluff) then thrown it out on its ear with a very spicy opinion. I would hazard a guess the opinion would focus on 1) the merits of the argument and 2) using the court as a political cudgel and 3) telling the executive and legislative branches to act like adults and do their job, instead of throwing it to the courts to (three would have been my fervent hope, not actual expectation)

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Dpatricola

    Good thing Trump and Senate republicans rushed through Barrett's nomination since it clearly worked in their favor regarding the election. /s

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      I still worry about what would've happened if it were down to one state and say 5000 votes where Biden won clearly. Then our system could've broke. While I don't think the Supreme Court would be the one to do it they could've had their hands tied if a state tried to legally overthrow the will of their voters.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Dpatricola

        I agree with you 100%. A rehash of Bush v Gore would have plummeted this country into an abyss that would take generations to recover from. Civil war would have been inevitable at the local and possibly county levels.

        Collapse
  7. Boatbody

    For those thinking the GOP was going wacko, the U S Supreme Court just denied the Texas lawsuit on lack of judicially acceptable standing.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-files-reply-brief-in-election-suit-final-step-before-court-would-issue-order-in-blockbuster-case

    It appears to be a 7-2 decision. Republicans joining Dem appointees to deny the suit.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    You know how low the Republican Party has gone and how low their expectations when the guest said he was "heartened" to see Chip Roy not sign a document calling for a remedy that would essentially destroy the Republic. That's a bar about as low as you can go ... at least till they lower it in a few days and keep lowering it.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Stephen Tootle

    Kevin McCarthy did have his name added.

    Collapse