Interesting: This Supposedly Explains Why it Was Texas that Filed the Lawsuit

Docketing is just a rubber stamp pic.twitter.com/HaVIwTVmvi

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 8, 2020

And the same friend who sent me that, writes as follows:

"That scheduling order is not automatic. It's specific to the relief sought.

"I predicted the Texas suit in November." >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 9, 2020

"Trump said his lawyers told him he 'didn't have standing' in a 'big beautiful suit that covers everything' back in November.

"Now what lawsuit on God's green earth would be comprehensive but not allow the candidate for president to have standing?

"Answer: this one." >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 9, 2020

"You can only get ORIGINAL jurisdiction in SCOTUS in a dispute between the states.

"The only way to have one 'big beautiful lawsuit' where a court has jurisdiction over all states is in SCOTUS.

"So a STATE could file the 'big beautiful lawsuit' but the President cannot." >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 9, 2020

"Only lawsuits by states against states qualify for original, rather than appellate, jurisdiction in SCOTUS.

"That's why his lawyers said he wouldn't have standing > pic.twitter.com/pSNw1VfVoL

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 9, 2020

"And Alito doesn't dissent – when he ALREADY said what PA did was unconstitutional?

"Once this case was filed, SCOTUS got the message. They deferred on PA – just on the injunction request – to knock out all four." >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) December 9, 2020

The entire thread is interesting and starts here:

https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/1336429988317421570

h/t dr0id