"....t Bob Barr has sued Texas to get John McCain and Barack Obama taken off the ballot. You see, according to Texas election code, they needed to file by August 25th. Well, the verdict is in, and the court has rejected Mr Barr's lawsuit.
This is the entire summation of their decision:
That's it. No explanation. Just denied.THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
Orders Pronounced September 23, 2008
MISCELLANEOUS
THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:
08-0761 IN RE BOB BARR, WAYNE ALLEN ROOT, AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TEXAS
There usually isn't a reasoned opinion when a mandamus is denied. Denials of writs are usually just that. They only issue reasoned orders (meaning they say why they are doing it) when they grant them.
ReplyDeleteA denial isn't challenged as error itself, so there isn't any reason to explain the reasons (whereas you can challenge a granting as being in error, so they need to back it up.) If you appeal a denial of writ, then you are doing it on the merits of the writ itself, not on error by the lower court in not granting it.
It's the same way when the court deines certiorari. They don't tell you why, they just do it.
My point is that it isn't a specific snub. They could have really been on the fence about what to do, or they could have just dismissed it outright. You can't read anything specific into it.
Oh, come now, I think you can read something specific into it if the court is a conservative one. Because at this stage of the game, removing Obama and McCain from the ballot would nearly ensure an Obama victory if you took TX's 55 votes off the table. Obama's not going to win TX, but McCain is. His campaign would be finished today if Barr's lawsuit had prevailed. So denying the mandamus without comment may not be particularly comment worthy, but its real world effect certainly is.
ReplyDelete