Supreme court again refuses to hear a lawsuit between states--unsigned order, no legal reasoning

For those who were over 25 at the time, we all saw that the 2020 presidential election was a total shit-show: despite hundreds of sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses alleging massive election fraud, and Texas suing two other states for election fraud, the Supreme Court refused to hear any of the cases.

Now: to the extent that Democrats still admit our Constitution exists, it explicitly states that when one state sues another, the Supreme Court is "the court of original jurisdiction."  What that means is that a case doesn't have to work it's insufferably slow way up thru lower courts to be heard:  The case is to go right to the Supreme Court to be resolved.  There's no other plausible, rational way to interpret that clause--which I've included below for your convenience, since almost no one would have bothered to look it up:

Article III, Section II:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and... to controversies between two or more states; 
   In all Cases...in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

But in the lawsuits filed by Texas after the 2020 election, the Court simply defied the Constitution's explicit order and refused to hear any of those lawsuits that claimed major illegalities in that election by the defendants.

The Court simply ignored the problem, explicitly refusing to do as the Constitution explicitly directs--refusing to hear the allegations of massive, brazen election fraud.  Whether the justices did that due to cowardice or pressure from Democrats seems irrelevant.

Put simply: the Court was derelict.  And since it's the court of last resort, there is no other avenue of appeal.   

That was in the end of 2020, and now you're about to see that the court has done it again, once more refusing to hear a lawsuit between two state--despite the Constitution's statement that it is the "court of original jurisdiction."

For years corrupt Democrat-ruled shitholes like California and Washington have been giving commercial driver's licenses to illegal aliens who neither speak English nor read English road signs.  Last year one of those illegals, driving a semi on the Florida Turnpike, made a totally illegal (let alone utterly stupid) U-turn.  A car behind it, travelling at 70 mph, was unable to stop and the crash killed three people in it. 

Investigation quickly revealed that the illegal didn't understand English and couldn't read road signs, both of which are required to get a CDL.  Yet due to corruption or mere incompetence of state employees, the illegal had managed to get a license to drive a big rig from both California and Washington.

Last year Florida sued both Dem-ruled states in the Supreme Court.  But just as the court did in 2020, it again defied the Constitution and simply refused to hear the case.  

Again, the court didn't give any legal reasoning for its refusal to obey the Constitution. The majority opinion was unsigned.  Just "nah, we're not gonna do it."

Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the majority's refusal to hear the case.  Here's what they wrote:

This Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Florida's suit because it involves one State suing other States.
    Article III establishes that "[i]n all Cases . . . in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."  No other court can hear this case.
    I doubt this Court has discretion to refuse to hear cases within its exclusive original jurisdiction. 

It can't be repeated often enough that the Constitution commands that the Supreme Court shall handle all lawsuits between states.  And if the Court refuses to hear such lawsuits there is no other way for such lawsuits to be resolved.  And yet in both 2021 and 2025 the court has refused to hear two lawsuits between states.

The Court is packed with "political justices" who never fail to claim they have jurisdiction in a case they want to take, but refuse to obey the Constitution when they don't want to hear a case.

If you don't see the problem with this, you're too damn stupid to breathe.  So let me try to clear it up for ya: Suppose there was clear, unquivocal video evidence of election officials in a critical swing state committing massive election fraud, which tips that state's decisive electoral votes to one party and decides a presidential election.

Other states sue the corrupt election officials in the fraud state--but the Supreme Court does what it's now done twice recently, and without giving any legal reasoning, refuses to hear the lawsuit.

Democrats: "Dat wud be perfekly fine, deplorable, cuz 'duh pipo haz spoken,' see?  Duh official, fully certified, totally honest count sez ouah partei won, an' duh SC sez dey not even gon' hear your frivolous lawsuit!  So we win again!  Neener neener neener!"

Now turn it around:  Would you Democrats be perfectly happy to accept everything you just read if the results helped us instead of you?

You can easily bleat that you would, but you wouldn't.  You'd have your rioters and city-burners in the streets the same day, and everyone knows it.

Source: Ace of Spades 

https://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=419880