Judicially Cognizable Interest

Wow! What a “put down”. And what great language.

From my cousin Robert Thomas – first deposited on Facebook

So… the Supreme Court threw out the ridiculous suit by Texas and some other silly Attorneys-General. Of course Texas has no standing to challenge voting rules in other states. Hell, even I knew that. If they did, a number of states would have gone to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to deal with the voter suppression in Texas. Are we done yet? Can we get on with the Inauguration of Biden and Harris and move toward normal and away from a dystopian state? Quiet, non-tweeting competency will be welcomed.

I used to consider myself a moderate to liberal Republican, but right now, that may mean I’m extinct. One thing that impressed me during the past two months was the behavior of GOP Congressman Adam Kinzinger from Illinois. He is to be commended for his plain clear talk. I’m also glad my Congressman, Sean Casten, was re-elected. Just think, somebody with a biochemistry degree in Congress.

I’m a little bit of a politics junkie, but I really like looking at, and often reading the decisions of the Supreme Court. I really hate it when people want a liberal or a conservative court. I like a court that is based on interpreting the Constitution and laws of the land, and want change enacted by Congress, although given the deadlock, my position looks like the position of a fool.

Back in June of 2020 when Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion on the landmark LGBT decision, I was ecstatic. A “conservative” justice writing that opinion was amazing. The writing in the opinion is worth the time spent reading it.

I loved Chief Justice Roberts pronouncement that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” The most fascinating part of the decision not to hear the Texas case, from my perspective actually came from Justices Thomas and Alito. They said the court should hear the case but would grant no relief. In other words, SCOTUS should hear the case, but even before we hear it, we know the claims of election fraud is bullshit (BS). In a way, the two most conservative Justices tried the case based on the pleadings and found them total bullshit (malarkey). In this trying time we should rejoice in the wisdom shown by our courts and judges. Keep in mind, judges appointed by trump (sic) ruled against him 100% of the time regarding election fraud.

Don’t appoint members of the Federalist Society and expect them not to follow the Constitution. My guess is trump (sic), in the future, will have the same batting average in the Southern District of NY and in state courts.

Robert and I share some common interests that I did not know we had. For whatever reason, maybe because I read many SCOTUS opinions while working on my M. Ed., I too read court opinions. Partly for the precise language, partly for the logic, I read them. I particularly like – ordinary public meaning… which says the words say what the words say.

This particular one is short and to the point, Texas, you have no standing and you were not harmed. There is no remedy.

155, ORIG.
The State of Texas’s 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. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.
See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. _ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

-U.S. Supreme Court

Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

Legal Information Institute

In a further post Robert (I know him as Tom) added a story that I had not heard from him before. I am grateful that some emergency trip took him to Florida.

While I’m on a little bit of a rant, I have one more comment to make. Most of you don’t know that from 1996 until I retired in 2004, I spent about 30% of my time in New York and had an office on the 22nd floor of World Trade Center 2. In fact, until the Thursday before 9-11, I was planning to have breakfast on 9-11 at the Windows on the World in WTC 1. Instead I was trying to fly to Miami for business at the last minute. That last minute trip saved me. I started going back to NY later that fall, saw the devastation, and Rudy Giuliani work tirelessly on behalf of the city he loved. He was amazing, and inspired many people. That’s why it is so sad to see what he has become. He would look better with a big red bulb on his nose today, so everyone would understand his role today. Again, it’s so sad. Maybe it’s the result of his mind’s functioning changing as you age. But this is not the same man that I saw in 2001.

Robert Thomas

In this caregiver’s life politics is an entertainment. One must find entertainment where it is. And it is good to have conversations with those whom you love. Sometimes you find out things you did not know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s