Andrew McCarthy: Supreme Court right to refuse to block Biden election rejects absurd legal theory | Fox News

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Texas s motion Friday to file a complaint against four other states, in essence seeking to disenfranchise over 20 million voters and overturn the 2020 presidential election. The high court s decision is being reported as a 7-2 ruling. Although that would be one-sided, it fails to convey just how one-sided is the peremptory order the justices issued.

The suggestion in some media reporting is that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the court s order. That is inaccurate. The position taken by these two justices has nothing to do with the merits or, better, the utter lack of merit of Texas legal claims. Rather, over the past few years, Justices Alito and Thomas have developed a position that the Supreme Court has no authority to decline to entertain lawsuits that pit states against each other.

Unlike the vast majority of cases, which reach the high court on appeal, lawsuits between states invoke the court s original jurisdiction under the Constitution. That is, such a case is filed in the Supreme Court as if it were a trial court, with no lower court having heard the case, developed an evidentiary record, and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.

via www.foxnews.com

I still would have liked to know what the Supremes thought of the merits, but I suppose I can guess.