News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud. Parent comment

Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by jcranmer on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @01:17PM (#25361737)
That is false. The request for emergency injunctive relief was also the request for certiorari. In denying the relief, they closed out the docket and denied certiorari in the process.

And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by citilife on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @01:39PM (#25362226)
Kelly was discussing that this morning on the radio still had it pending at SCOTUS. They believe it may be merged with the Texas case.

So, unless I'm missing something, the former comment appeared correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio... by jcranmer on Wednesday December 09, 2020 @01:52PM (#25362539)
This is the link to the actual docket of the case:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...

There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live.

If you read the original brief, this is what it requests:

> Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable.

In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)

[ Parent | on HN ]