IS THE SUPREME COURT A JOKE?!?!?

So if I am to understand the not-so-supreme court’s order correctly, Texas does not have standing to dispute the rampant voter fraud that went on in other states to decide a NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. The idea here is that Texas should have no say in how Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania handle their elections. Did I read that right? 

Let us refer ourselves back to a little known 2006 case by the name of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. In that case, Massachusetts, joined by a bunch of other Democrat controlled states sued the federal government because they didn’t feel the federal government was sufficiently regulating the “pollutant” known as “carbon dioxide” in a bunch of Republican controlled states (many of whom were respondents in the suit). Obviously, Massachusetts has no business dictating how well regulated “pollutants” are in other states, right? Surely Massachusetts lacks standing, right? WRONG. According to the not-so-supreme court back then, Massachusetts and these other liberal states had standing. 

The case has been argued largely as if it were one between two private parties; but it is not. The very elements that would be relied upon in a suit between fellow-citizens as a ground for equitable relief are wanting here. The State owns very little of the territory alleged to be affected, and the damage to it capable of estimate in money, possibly, at least, is small. This is a suit by a State for an injury to it in its capacity of quasi-sovereign. In that capacity the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. It has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air.

So you mean to tell me that Massachusetts and the other Democrat states have standing with respect to the pollution in other states because it might affect their ability to breathe pure air, but Texas and Republican controlled states DO NOT have standing with respect to voter fraud in other states during a national election even though these illegitimate votes get to determine who gets control over Texas and the rest of the country? REALLY?

But BillWhittleFan89, you say. You clever dastardly fiend! Surely you’re aware that the Massachusetts case took place nearly 20 years ago and Chief Justice John Roberts and the “conservative judges” dissented in that case, right? Surely that would explain the discrepancy! Ah, but you’re forgetting one thing. Chief Justice John Roberts himself made clear in this 2020’s June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo case that regardless of the prior positions he has taken in cases, it is important to yield to prior precedent; this in turn lead him to vote alongside the liberal justices to strike down Louisiana’s abortion-restrictions law even though he had taken the exact opposite position in his dissent Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016. Roberts feels it’s critical that the court vigorously yield itself to stare decisis.

So how come Roberts didn’t beat his chest about stare decisis here and and join Thomas and Alito in agreeing to hear Texas’s voter fraud lawsuit? For that matter, how come Bryer didn’t join to hear the suit even though he had agreed to hear Massachusetts’s CLIMATE CHANGE lawsuit years prior? That would’ve been 4 votes right there!

And what about the 3 Trump appointees? Why did they join the liberal justices in refusing to hear this case? Surely our good friend Neil Gorsuch, who is so adamant about activism that he rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights act to include the LBGT community (even though the LEGISLATURE NEVER INTENDED FOR THAT LAW TO APPLY TO THAT GROUP) is willing to engage in similar activism at least with respect to hearing Texas’ voter fraud case, right? Surely our good friend Brett Kavanaugh, willingness to stretch the interpretation of the constitution by allowing a state to extend its absentee ballot deadline to nine days after the presidential electionis indicative of his willingness to be fair and flexible, right? Surely our supreme court’s recent refusal to even take up 10 different second amendment cases questioning the constitutionality of the draconian gun laws throughout Maryland, California and Massachusetts is by no means any indication that our conservative supreme court is not remotely anywhere near conservative as we were lead to believe? Surely our Supreme Court isn’t a joke, right?

It most certainly is ladies and gentleman. And we the people are the punchline.