Talk:Texas v. Pennsylvania/Archive 1

Archive 1

The sentence “ The case and its merits have been criticized by law experts and politicians.”

Isn’t this an opinion? It would seem that it shouldn’t be in the article in that, unlike actual facts, of course it has been criticized (what hasn’t) and will receive support from others. Thurifer (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding docket number

The infobox template doesn't work with this case's docket number (letter O instead of number 0) Thongtinvn (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Section for law responses are too subjective

In this section, law professors called this case outlandish and wacko. that is an opinion. Wikipedia editors, can you please replace that entire section with objective arguments from legal scholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.159.115 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The section is not a pros or cons list, it's a "Response" and "Reaction" section. The vast majority of legal experts have reacted with scorn. If you can find legal experts who have had positive responses, you can certainly add those, or, if you would like to find "objective arguments," you can add those as well. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 05:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

State delegations

The article says "potentially sending the election to the House of Representatives for resolution where Republicans hold a majority of the state delegations." I realise that that statement cites a CNN article which says "The court could also, Trump's filing suggests, let state legislatures determine who wins each state or throw the entire election to the US House of Representatives, where each state delegation would have one vote -- and since Republican delegations outnumber Democratic delegations, Trump would win." Would it be worth the article saying: -

1. That the House of Representatives in which a Contingent election is held is the newly-elected one?

2. How many state delegations in the newly-elected House are controlled by the Republican Party, how many are held by the Democratic Party and how many (if any) are equally divided?

3. That it is not enough for Republican delegations to outnumber Democratic delegations (which could occur if e.g. 25 delegations were Republican, 24 were Democratic and one were equally divided) - the Republicans would have to control a majority of delegations - at least 26 out of 50. See Contingent_election#Presidential_election.

Incidentally, page 18 of the Plaintiff's Statement of Case says that "any remedial action can be complete well before January 6, 2020." Perhaps Texas is hoping for the intervention of Doctor Who ... Alekksandr (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. 2020.pdf

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Just amazed

@Soibangla, Masem, Starship.paint, and HAL333: I shouldn't be too surprised as this sort of thing is par for the course for WP, but … wow. You all (sorry if I'm missing someone and feel free to ping them too!) have created what is surely the most comprehensive guide to this case in the world in two days. You should be really proud of all your effort on this! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've done very little (less than 4%). You should also credit IP, 68.199.42.28. starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Commentary portrayed as a fact

Writers in this article cannot help but write in a blog and then translate as some sort of bellwether in a Wiki article. That is the reason some articles should come with the disclaimer “Opinion”: “ The incumbent president has referred to the lawsuit as "the big one",[7] while SCOTUSblog has referred to it as a "Hail Mary" due to **its unlikelihood of success.[8]**

A “Hail Mary” is a last ditch effort. Some famous “Hail Mary” passes have been successful. The likelihood of success remains to be seen. This is an opinion not worthy of an encyclopedic type article. Thurifer (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care abouf "facts". Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, a collection of sources. If the sources are calling this effort a "Hail Mary" then Wikipedia will use it. Alcyon007 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguities

The attorney general of Montana, Tim Fox, signed onto the Amicus brief filed by the Missouri AG's office in support of Plaintiff Texas. However, the governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, filed a separate Amicus brief in support of the Defendant States. The speaker of the Pennsylvania house, Bryan Cutler, and Kerry Benninghoff filed an Amicus brief in support of Plaintiff Texas. Various Georgia lawmakers filed an Amicus brief in support of Plaintiff Texas.

This is, of course, a current event. Can anyone find secondary sources to describe these "ambiguities" clearly from NPOV? Should the present color map of individual states be updated? Seraphim3 (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Language should probably changed; states are not filing briefs, attorneys general are. I'll try to fix it.Mcrsftdog (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Color scheme of the map

I suggest swapping the two blue color shades: darker blue for the defendants and the lighter blue for the supporters. This may support a better focus on the defendants and is comparable to the darker red for the plaintiff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.123.8 (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoever last edited the map, Arizona needs to be marked neutral like Ohio. I can't find anything that says they support Texas, they only support that SCOTUS take the case. --Masem (t) 16:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I was just going by what the article itself said, but the news articles I've found agree with you. I'll fix it ASAP. Mcrsftdog (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you maybe add a smaller circle for a state if their governor filed a brief, as Montana's did? This change doesn't have to be immediate. We should wait until the Court allows him to submit it and until other governors do so. ~ HAL333 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO if a lot of states are gonna file conflicting motions, we'd do better with a table or multiple maps, but I'm not sure if that's the case yet. Mcrsftdog (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Arizona?

I don't get why we have Arizona supporting neither side? The Conclusion literally says "The State respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file an amicus brief respecting Texas’s motions." Call me crazy, but it seems like Arizona was gonna support Texas. Therefore, can someone explain to me why we flipped Arizona from a Texas supporter, to what it currently is? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This Reuters article says Arizone filed its own brief showing interest but not taking sides. —ADavidB 14:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Constitutional arguments

My WP:OR reading of the Texas brief indicates that there are three allegations (see paragraphs 128–144, starting on page 46 of the PDF):

• A violation of the Electors Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 2);
• A violation of the Equal Protection Clause; and
• A violation of the Due Process Clause

Is there a secondary source that says this? It would be nice to clarify what they're actually alleging. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's everything I could find:

• Heritage Foundation [1]
• NYT mentions the Electors Clause [2]

That's it. ~ HAL333 19:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, Thanks! I think Heritage is reliable enough for this, although obviously it'd be better to have something from a neutral source. I'll probably just drop this in and attribute it to Heritage with NYT and the original as backup. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it turns out the piece is written by Hans von Spakovsky, who is clearly not the best source out there, but it's readily verifiable info in the complaint itself and NYT backs up some of it, so hopefully that's ok? With any luck there will be an explainer or something at SCOTUSBlog and we can switch that in. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not ideal. Although I don't have a crystal ball, we'll probably be able to replace it with a more reliable source in the next few days. ~ HAL333 22:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Found another: (Bloomberg[3]) ~ HAL333 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, Thanks - I tried to ping you when I added it, but I forgot about the caps in your handle! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What was the Justice vote tally?

What was the Justice vote tally? Can this be added to the top, please. I only skimmed, but it says "unsigned", and then says that two Justices disagreed. Does that mean the vote was 7-2? Misty MH (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Misty MH, This would depend on the resolution of the question posed in the section immediately above. As Valereee and I see it, the vote total would be 9–0. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Technically there was no tally. The court did not take the case. Since at least 5 had to vote to accept, the tally could have been anything from 4 to accept, 5 to deny, to 0-9 (but Alito/Thomas's statement would make this end 2-7). But that's the tally to take the case. There's no normal vote here that we'd normally include on a Court decision. --Masem (t) 02:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

▲ this soibangla (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL

Is the last sentence in the current iteration of the lede OK? I mean, 14 December is tomorrow UTC, so it's probably fine, but I'm not completely sure. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence has been bugging me. I say we remove it. soibangla (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists of "participants"

I have removed the lists of participants, particularly the Representatives that signed on. We have references that have these lists, we shouldn't document these given that this case didn't go anywhere, yet. There may be reason later (if for example, Pelosi does actually not seat them) but until that happens, this iis far to much detail. --Masem (t) 01:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Masem. I disagree that the list of representatives is too much detail. The act of signing the amicus brief, and the public condemnation and controversy over the act of signing are notable events in and of themselves. However, I won't push the issue at this point. If they are not seated in the next congress, then of course the list is critical. For now, I will just make sure there is an external link to a list in the paragraph. Tjbliss (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if it becomes the situation that they aren't seated due to this, then that makes the list critical. But right now, they are 125-some names that we don't need to spell out in full since other sites/news reports have the details; the importance is of unknown weight per CRYSTAL. We're also not listing out all the other amicus briefs that were submitted beyond the states and reps, as this is not typical for a SCOTUS case coverage on WP. Further, given that in the RSes that cover this, these names are being set up like a "hit list", we should be very careful about repeating it until its necessary. --Masem (t) 19:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I was open to a separate subarticle for the participants, but others strongly disagree that it should be cordoned off in a separate article, and I have to say, I'm inclined to agree with that thinking per NOTPAPER. Feoffer (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

A problems with that list: when the AGs of a state submit, while it is their submission, that is normally taken as a statement by the state itself so assigning the AG as the individual supporting it rather than the state is sorta inappropriate. (Montana's the unique case here). That's why it is just best we have the list of states as in support or otherwise in the article for that. That leaves the list of Representatives and whether to include that all depends on if this idea that they may not be seated come the start of the next Congress comes to pass. Its too CRYSTAL to tell as I explain above. If that is important, it should be included in this article or in the 117th Congress article and pointed to from there, or something between these. We can figure that hurdle out when we get there, but I fully agree a separate article for the participants in this case, given that it was denied, is way overkill. --Masem (t) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

INCLUDE Masem, what wikipedia policy are you using when you remove those names until or unless the reps are not seated by Pelosi? WP:CRYSTAL only applies if we accept your self-defined rule that we have to follow Pelosi's opinion on this matter. Also, "the information is on other sites" has never been a criteria for exclusion on Wikipedia. In fact, quite the opposite. Those are reasons for inclusion. The table I added was not very well formatted and was incomplete, but we can fix those things. With a properly formatted table it would fit quite nicely in the article and be very helpful information and absolutely relevant. It would be included under WP:DUE. I have some sympathy for your concern about a hit list, but these are US Reps acting in their roles as elected officials, we owe them no privacy, and listing their names is literally what they themselves did when they signed the brief. At this point I see no consensus for removing the information. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I do a lot of work of SCOTUS cases. We typically do not cover the list of amicus briefs in any type of detail and that's for cases that actually get heard and come to a decision. This was a case that was denied by the Court. That we have so much detail on it already is a RECENTISM/NOT#NEWS problem already because right now, there is very little impact on the actual completion of the election process or future events that we can judge. It is worth noting that 125+ Reps put their names to a document to support it, and we can put references to sources that give that list. But given those names are being treated as targets by the media but yet to have any practical impact on their careers, we should be very careful about their inclusion per BLP (though BLP does not outright prevent this list), to a degree, in addition to being, at this point, indiscriminate information. You are presenting the argument that they need to be named because they supported this action in their role as Representatives, which is exactly the issue that is making them targets by the media and their political opponents. Again, if something comes out of this, then adding them will be a clear solution, but if this lawsuit disappears quietly once Biden takes office, then the list is simply UNDUE. So we should wait until its clear it makes sense. --Masem (t) 20:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't get the "hit list" concerns at all -- we list people who supported defendants right along with people who supported plaintiffs, just like any reader would expect. Feoffer (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the individual states are being targeted by the media or their political opponents in the same way that the Representatives are being targeted. --Masem (t) 20:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't get what you're trying to say here -- individual states don't have political opponents, and the fact that the media and political spheres are covering this is prima facie evidence that we should do likewise .Feoffer (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's the RECENTISM issue at play. Of course the media is reporting it, the whole lawsuit has been appropriate called an attempt to overthrow the will of the votes and the Constitution, as has much of the other suits issued by Trump and the Republicans. There is a valid concern they raise that the GOP may be trying to overthrow the election via other means, and 100% this is critical political discussion. But the keyword there for purposes of this discussion and for Wikipedia is "may". None of that has been shown to be factually true yet, but only speculation of 100s of pundits, and WP doesn't report on excessive speculation even from reliable sources. This includes the accusations that have been made towards these Representatives that they have participated in this undermining by backing the lawsuit. So while the list is readily out and meets WP:V for all purposes, that it has become a politicized matter is a good reason to keep the list out until we have a stronger, long-term reason to include. To look at it another way, say this lawsuit never comes up again after today's EC vote. That list of names becomes dead weight in this article since there would be no long-term coverage of it. That's why its RECENTISM to include it at this point until we know if it actually matters or not. --Masem (t) 22:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

126 members of congress asked for the election to be oveturned -- why would their names be dead weight? We still care about who signed onto Georgia's secession, after all. Our readers keep asking us to add this info, RS sources give it to them, they shouldn't have to leave The Free Encyclopedia to get it. Feoffer (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the secession actually happened so there's weight to those names (and in that specific case, those were names required to sign off for it to happen). These are simply Representatives that signed onto a brief to support a lawsuit. Now, there are lots of possible speculated end results that have been thrown about where these names would become important, and should that come to pass, then inclusion becomes obvious, but so far, those events aren't even on the horizon. And Wikipedia has never been the end-all of information. We're supposed to summarize information and point readers where to find out more. This is exactly the type of information that having a few reference links would help. We're not just populating articles with references to look smart; that's for readers to learn more if they need to. --Masem (t) 07:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Meh. At the end of the day, readers want this info, it's verified, and novel editors are going to keep discovering this article and adding the info they wanted to find here. You're putting your thumbs on the scales on this one. Feoffer (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I concur that supposed future events are not a good reason for inclusion, but this is well-grounded in past actions. As you say, the list of participants is covered in RSes, our readers should be able to know who participated in the lawsuit, and it causes us no harm to provide them with that info. It would be out of place on a subarticle or the article on the 117th Congress. Feoffer (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sad to see that Masem (talk · contribs) has again deleted this well-sourced information, the third such removal by Masem today. 1, 2, 3. I hope they will reconsider their decision to repeatedly delete well-sourced information that has been independently restored by three different users just today amid multiple other calls for inclusion here and at the aborted participants subarticle. Feoffer (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break to allow for more structured discussion

• Oppose including the lists of participants, as I don't think it is strictly relevant at this time. Most SCOTUS cases have lots of amici, and we don't list them separately. Of course, if these members are actually excluded from the House, that would change things; but we don't know if that's going to be the case or not (see WP:CRYSTAL). However, I would point out that Masem seems at least close to a WP:3RR violation on this article, so we should slow down on the additions and deletions until we have consensus about inclusion or exclusion of the challenged material. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's certainly a major part of the historical record here which individuals seditiously supported the overturning of a democratic election by tossing in the trash millions of votes. I think the large list could be hidden in a collapsable section though; it should not be shoved into a separate article. This has gotten far greater coverage than a typic amicus brief (which aren't usually rooted in lies). Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As I've noted, even in fully-heard SCOTUS cases, we rarely go into this much detail on the amicus briefs, so we're in an WP:NOT#IINFO situation. To further stress, the reasons for inclusion all seem to be politically driven (the need to identify the Representatives that signed onto this wild bid to undo the election) which may be a necessary in the future, but until that's clearly the case, something we should avoid per BLP and other policy. (But if they are included they can be included on this page, no need for a separate article). --Masem (t) 21:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"we rarely go into this much detail on the amicus briefs" is a textbook example of why WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY exists. Feoffer (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support Reliable sources routinely list the participants and our readers want the info. Its absence is a violation of the principle of least astonishment, a reasonable reader would expect us to provide them with this information. Feoffer (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support include a list of US Reps who signed onto the amicus brief. @Tjbliss:We don't edit pages based on precedence, but based on the notability and WP:RS of each individual page. The list is of profound historical significance, and the fact that so many signed increases not decreases the importance. The fact that WP:RS such as Washington Post chose to list the reps is also further reason for it to be here, not the opposite. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I actually removed such a list of representatives earlier. I believe it is WP:UNDUE and too much detail to include a list of signees, and the same is true for lists of attorneys generals for and against. Anyone who wishes to find the full list can use the provided citations. Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: we can/should cite anecdotal members only, but we can link to House Members Who Signed a Brief Asking the Supreme Court to Consider Overturning the Election soibangla (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral but leaning oppose - I'm sort of torn between inclusion and exclusion of this information, but I do feel Soibangla's suggestion could be the best way to go. Love of Corey (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The people who expressed support for this lawsuit have, in doing so, taken a basic stance in their political philosophy. Whether you support the lawsuit or not, enumerating its supporters and detractors helps readers to understand where people stand on this pivotal, basic issue. — goethean 18:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment am I right that there is currently no option for including the signers of the Amicus somewhere else on Wikipedia? A separate page was attempted but then redirected? If so, then we have a problem, because it seems that there is, thus far, no consensus in sight on this page, and no compromise option. I can't believe that this information is not worthy of wikipedia, and I have seen no policy-based reason to exclude it. I'm thinking about doing an RFC for this (it would be my first) but I worry that our problem isn't a lack of opinion. Rather our problem is that there is, as in American politics, an intractable clash of world views.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTESAL. Reliable sources aren't listing everyone in on the brief so I don't think we should either. It would make sense to include some of the more notable people, though, like Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, and Mo Brooks, who have been extensively covered in RS. Herbfur (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of WP:RS that list all the signers. Washington Post, ProPublica to name just two. Also, I have read both of the policies you list, they are referencing trivial lists of things like software updates. That a majority of Republican in the House think millions of votes should be thrown out is hardly trivia. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the fact that they tried to unlawfully cancel many votes that's trivial, it's putting all their names in the article. The cited policies do mention software updates but also apply to lists of other things as well. This article would get very long and would be less readable if we included the names of every single signer. The sources you cited also were written to specifically list signers, other articles from RS about the topic in general don't list all the signers (this article from the New York Times and this one from Forbes, for instance). I still think we should only list notable signers.Herbfur (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is 90% of the reasoning. If there were only 2 or 3 GOP Reps that backed up, there certainly wouldn't an issue with including it, but at the same time, the chance that papers would have covered it to a wide degree would be far less. (Remember, there are several more amicus briefs that were submitted to this case we are not including because they didn't get coverage). So the full 125+ list is simply just excessive weight given that we can readily source news articles that give that list. The other 10% is the politics to include the list; many of those supporting this in their !votes express needs along the lines that they "seditiously supported the overturning of a democratic election by tossing in the trash millions of votes" (from Reywas92) WP is neutral and apolitical and we cannot take that presumption here, and we have to recognize that calling those names - as many of the papers do - is nearly equivalent to targetting them for traitorous activities. --Masem (t) 00:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So, the more signatures a document acquires, the less appropriate it is for us to cover the identities of the signatories? That is... creative. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A table that takes up 65 lines (four columns), and I think it could be collapsable, is not going to negatively affect the readability of the article. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Its not so much the size issue, just that you're dropping 125 names with minimal encyclopedic rationale into the middle of an article. We for example do not include the list of who voted for what on major congressional bills outside the basic vote count, even when the voting doesn't follow party lines. We're at a point where 1) the impact of this failed suit is waning more and more and 2) any "actions" against these Representatives seems to be going quiet. Unless something changes with respect to the latter, it simply is just indiscriminate info to add to the article that we usually don't add in any simply equivalent article. --Masem (t) 23:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Feoffer:, why did you create Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania? From the above discussion, it seems that many users are opposed to having this information on Wikipedia (listings of attorneys general, and congressmen). Natg 19 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, sorry for the accusation. It appears the page was created before the above discussion. Nonetheless, is there a consensus that can be taken on this discussion (which would also apply to Feoffer's separate page)? Natg 19 (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha!! no worries Natg19! Timelines get tangled. :) Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Alito and Thomas' statement

Can anyone clarify whether Alito and Thomas' statement expressing their desire that the court should hear the case is a "dissenting" opinion or not? I have seen a few sources portray this as a dissent, and others saying that there was no dissents, but that their statement was just "an opinion".

The current text of the article says "Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented." and the infobox shows "Dissent (partial) Alito, joined by Thomas". Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a pretty comprehensive argument about why it isn't a dissent; NYT is a bit more equivocal: "Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers had anticipated the court would give the president and the Republican attorneys general something that could be characterized as supportive, in the form of a dissent or a lengthy commentary. Instead, there was simply the brief statement from the two justices". I think the idea is basically: Thomas and Alito argued that the court has no discretion to "decide" whether to hear the case. So they disagree with the notion that the court can even make a decision about whether to take the case or not. But as they want to give "no other relief", that means that they would not agree with Texas on the merits if the case were to be heard. Perhaps the best option for us is to say "statement" and drop an {{efn}} quoting the CNN article and the other sources you mention to the effect of "it probably isn't a dissent, but sources disagree". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, it's not a dissent. It's a statement. When it's a dissent, they say so. This is a procedural opinion that as a matter of course, for states suing other states SCOTUS is the first court and should always accept the case, even if it's clearly frivolous. That's what Alito and Thomas are commenting on. —valereee (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications! I was leaning toward this as well, but wanted further input. Natg 19 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Their statement is about the discretionary power of the Supreme Court of the United States to select the cases they want to hear. They assert that under exclusive original jurisdiction that discretionary power is inoperative. Therefor it isn't a dissent because the case was dismissed under lack of standing. The standing doctrine being not an effect of the Court discretionary power to select their cases, their statement isn't a dissent except if what they are saying is that all the standing doctrine is inoperative on exclusive original jurisdiction cases. Ius naturalis (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not include the documents?

@Metropolitan90:Is there a policy or MOS reason to cut the document? I don't normally edit legal pages, so I might not understand the MOS, but I find more information to be useful. The pages for the constitution, emancipation proclamation, have images of the actual documents. What's more, per WP:NOTPAPER we don't need to be stingy about content that adds value. Personally, I find the actual document in image form quite valuable. Maybe it's not to a lawyer or law student, but Wikipedia is not supposed to function as a law journal. It's an encyclopedia for the general reader. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Those documents have clear historical relevance, whereas an amicus brief for a case that was rejected a SCOTUS has far far less importance to be "seen", even if it is a free image. We can link to the brief, but the image isn't close to usefulness here. --Masem (t) 20:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. There is an arguably relevant MOS reason to cut these images: MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, which says, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." Unlike with the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation, few people would want to go to the National Archives to look at a display of these legal motions and briefs. I have no objection to linking to the PDFs of these documents, but they shouldn't be presented as pictures. Their content is of much greater interest than their appearance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Alaska and 19 states backed Texas, not 17

Please check this source [1] and give advice on how to proceed, please. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a particularly strong RS and can probably be dismissed as the author's error. ~ HAL333 23:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of supporting AGs/Congresspeople

While the lists in this article are here because of the merge close on the AFD from the seperate List (see headers on this page), I will point out that at this point, the full lists of these names really is not appropriate for WP to document at this point:

• This was a failed lawsuit, and while notable, we should be reworking this article to reflect that it had no impact on anything for the most part outside of being one of many attempts to alter the election results. (A news search shows nearly no discussion of the suit after Dec 2020).
• There are sources that list these names out, this is not like the only place in the world to find it (nor should we be the only place).
• We are nearly a year since this suit was filed, and nothing has come of any action to these individuals. There was speculation in the media that those supporting the Texas side of the suit would face penalties potentially by the Democratically-controlled Congress for supporting this, but that never came to pass (likely due to the Jan 6 situation taking far more center stage). Back when the list was added, there was discussion and some points to support this list was this this was "historic" (see [4]), which has clearly been shown wrong.
• These are all names of individuals that wrote to support the case on one side or another via amicus briefs - not parties to the case (those are outlined specifically when they were made parties). In our standard approach to federal cases, we rarely list out amicus brief parties since they are often in the dozens; there may be relevant third-party note of the amicus parties, and certainly here, a broad comment on the number of AGs and Congresspeople supporting each side is approach from how it was covered, but the detail of each name is beyond scope for how we normally cover this.
• And to the point why they were originally removed (not by me), is that content critical to an article should never be collapsed to start. Uncollapsing the tables would "fix" that but that reveals how unnecessary those lists really are - they're just datum that a reference works better to give, given the above points.

So I'm proposing that we remove the list of names at this point, since the situation has clearly changed from when the merge was proposed/completed in Feb 2021. --Masem (t) 04:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)