Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio...
by disgrunt on Thursday December 10, 2020 @09:59AM
(#25374308)
I'm not a lawyer, but I would argue that other parties have already attempted to dispute the unconstitutional election changes in those state courts, including their supreme courts, and they've been unanimously dismissed for jurisdictional or procedural reasons. For example, I believe the application of laches in Pennsylvania to be improper because Republicans had sought a stay of the election changes prior to the election. Thus far, it appears the Pennsylvania courts refuse to adjudicate the constitutionality of these election changes.
Re:YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread electio...
by nl on Saturday December 12, 2020 @03:50AM
(#25396840)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-12/supreme-court-rejects...
They rejected it.
Once again it was a fantasy disconnected to facts.
SCOTUS settles interstate disputes all the time. But one of the things they look at before they hear a dispute is if the dispute can be settled in a lower court.
In this case, Texas is complaining about the way otehr states conduct their affairs. The normal course to do this would be via the states courts (that is literally what they exist for).
It's very unclear why SCOTUS would hear this instead of directing Texas to file in the state courts.
(There's also the question of standing, but that's another hurdle Texas would have to overcome)