By Rich Kozlovich
Yesterday, December 20, 2022, William Quinn Posted this piece, BREAKING: Georgia Supreme Court Reverses 'Lack Of Standing' In 2020 Election Case, saying:
It has been confirmed that today's Supreme Court order also applies to the case of Garland Favorito et al. v. Alex Wan et al. as both cases were originally dismissed under the same premise...............the Georgia Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari, vacated the previous judgement and remanded the case of CAROLINE JEFFORDS et al. v. FULTON COUNTY et al. The Court ordered that the lower Court of Appeals reconsider the case which was previously dismissed for lack of “standing.” ...........Lack of “standing” was cited in a number of cases brought forward as evidence of possible malfeasance mounted following the November 2020 election............... Following the release of Dinesh DeSousa’s documentary “2000 Mules”, public awareness in Georgia and across the Country has broadened with renewed calls for election transparency and investigations.
- Texas: The Eyes of the World Are Upon You!
- SCOTUS: The Eyes of Justice Were Upon You. And You Failed!
- SCOTUS Has Failed. That Failure May Be An Opportunity
Federal law does not, on its face, give this Court discretion to decline to decide cases within its original jurisdiction. Yet the Court has long exercised such discretion, and does so again today in denying, without explanation, Nebraska and Oklahoma’s motion for leave to file a complaint against Colorado. I would not dispose of the complaint so hastily. Because our discretionary approach to exercising our original jurisdiction is questionable, and because the plaintiff States have made a reasonable case that this dispute falls within our original and exclusive jurisdiction, I would grant the plaintiff States leave to file their complaint.
Justice Thomas went on to explain:
Federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it. Nothing in §1251(a) suggests that the Court can opt to decline jurisdiction over such a controversy.........If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief.............. Because our discretionary approach appears to be at odds with the statutory text, it bears reconsideration. Moreover, the “reasons” we have given to support the discretionary approach are policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text specifying the Court’s original jurisdiction.The question that needs answering is this: