The
bottom line was simple:
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in a brief unsigned opinion.
How is Texas harmed by another state holding its elections according to its own laws? The results can't be considered a harm
per se, because the possibility that the winner of an election will be different from how a majority of
Texas voters decided based on any combination of other states' preferences. They don't have to
like it, but what is the Court supposed to do? Sympathize with their feelings, maybe. Throw out another states' votes when it can't be demonstrated that they are invalid--no.
I remain disturbed that this infuriating exercise was submitted to SCOTUS in the first place, but am more concerned that a stunning 126 House GOP members also thought this signifying stunt was worth their signing on to, even as a form of futile protest under the assumption it would go nowhere. For one thing, I'm not sure that all of them truly signed on for the lulz, to suck up to Trump Daddy, or whatever other lib-owning motive might have been behind it. Some may have truly believed this case to be "the Big One".
For another, there are anti-democratic elements in the GOP and have been for some time, such as your white supremacists, various Tea Party nutters, and theocrats--you know, the type who are Trump's biggest fans, because they see him as a battering ram. For them, he doesn't have to be good or clever (and he's not especially); he just has to fuck shit up for the status quo.
This is the problem--trying to explain to a cosplay conservative wearing a tricorn hat that this violated federalism probably just isn't going to get you anywhere after Trump has promised them a chance to fool about with muskets. (And I really don't know how one is supposed to talk to
the gentleman from Pahrump representing the interests of New California and New Nevada.)
This case was abusive of the process, just like the various appeals being submitted in Wisconsin, Arizona, etc. while providing nothing substantially different or new. It exists to keep a kind of stubborn denial alive by holding out the appearance of a possible win. (It also raises funds. You can question whether or not you want to call it "sedition"--but it looks lucrative. You know, if you get in on the early stages. ) It sharpens the sense of grievance and loss Trump supporters have by keeping the wounds raw with helpings of salt and vinegar. And
I've been concerned where this sort of thing
could lead.
(Already, social media malcontents are accusing even Trump's own SCOTUS selections as having been Deep State plants, and the tone is threatening--in just the same way as various state election officials and electeds have been met with protests and death threats by people who have been led to think of this election as a casus belli.)
If Trump were a very different sort of man, he could graciously concede and admit the reality of the situation. But he doesn't seem to be capable of that kind of leadership. So the fuckery,
and all the potential unrest that goes with it, will go right on.
