Repub's favorite Texas judge threw out MAGA attempt to overthrow CA Prop 50

[Just_Vote_Dem]

Since it looks like CA Gov Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is going to coast to an easy victory on Nov 4, MAGA Republicans had been hoping that a long-shot constitutional challenge initiated by Trump’s former White House physician and current Texas Congressman, Ronny Jackson, would still manage to overturn it. But even though Jackson filed his bogus lawsuit in Amarillo so he could bring it before Trump’s favorite Federal Judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk (look his history up), even this lackey couldn’t find any reason to allow it to move forward! From the Daily Beast:

Jackson, who represents Texas, sued Newsom, 58, in August, seeking to block the measure—which the Democratic governor has dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act. The Trump-loyalist, 58, claimed that if voters approve the measure and Democratic candidates go on to win statewide, he would be left vulnerable to losing his chair on two House subcommittees.

Jackson posted a video on social media announcing his lawsuit, telling Newsom, “We are going to sue you, and we are going to win this.”

But a Trump-appointed Texas district judge dismissed Jackson’s lawsuit Thursday, saying that the congressman failed to show how California’s redistricting plan would cause him to “suffer a legally cognizable injury-in-fact.”
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/10/26/2350565/-Guess-who-Just-Threw-Out-MAGA-s-Last-Ditch-Lawsuit-to-Overturn-CA-Prop-50-Redistricting?
====================================================
WOW-Even Kacsmaryk wouldn't go for it!!!

[Lovie777]

1. K & R..............

[LonePirate]

2. How does a federal judge in Texas have jurisdiction to rule on a state law in California?

They are in different federal districts so that seems to be the more powerful legal argument than the flimsy harm which Jackson was claiming. It failed this time but this seems like a very troubling precedent is about to be set in the future by these Republicans.

[Attilatheblond]

3. Yep. How many other really bad GOP pols will try to judge shop in states other than Calif. to overturn a CA law?

They will ALL be at risk, but hey, that's what happens in a democracy when legislators turn from the best interests of their constituents in favor of enabling the dictatorial ambitions of a convicted felon, out on bail from other indicted crimes.

Serve the people or serve a dictator, the choice is theirs and they, each alone and as a group, own their choice.

Governor Newsom and the people of California didn't make them support the destruction of our democratic processes, that was your choice, you cowardly GOP pols! Newsom and the people of California are holding up a light to other states as to how we protect our nation from your personal and party treason.

[Wounded Bear]

7. There have to be limits on their judge shopping...

We won this time, but will it hold with other cases that will undoubtedly be filed?

[Fil1957]

4. Who woulda thought that even Kacsmaryck will only go so far...

[peggysue2]

5. When a Republican can't win in front of Judge Kacsmaryk . . .

He/she can't win anywhere.

Republicans cannot stand a mirror thrown up to catch their own ugly reflection.

Fight fire with fire. Newsom is on the money!

[Takket]

6. That corrupt judge would have pushed ahead if the case had about 0.01% legitimacy

So that tells you how bad the case was.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

8. "legally cognizable injury-in-fact." While for Jackson there is likely no legal injury for being asked to do...

...less work for the same pay, this case has me concerned that Mike Johnson--and every future Speaker of the House--may in fact be able to sue on this basis--which is really actually mind-boggling.

The Speaker of the House makes an annual salary of $223,500. That's $49,500 more than the base salary of $174,000 that an ordinary House member makes.

Losing your speakership would actually cost you up to $49,500 a year--which is a heck of a legally cognizable injury-in-fact. That is somewhere around the median average annual income for all American workers.

Why wouldn't every Speaker of the House sue on this novel basis?

And who thinks the current Supreme Court wouldn't rule in favor of a Republican Speaker while creating language that would exclude a Democratic Speaker?

I hope there is a reason this isn't plausible. IANAL--just a very cynical American at this point.