'' it certainly accords in my mind with the quality of their decision.'' I'm afraid Grav, you need to give some consideration to the idea that it might relate to the quality of you mind , rather than the quality of their decision.
So, what reasons might they have had for knocking this case back?
Think about the consequences of them even hearing this case.
I see no impediment for another case, perhaps brought by Vermont , asking the SCOTUS to stop Texas drilling for oil, because the good people of Vermont will be adversely effected by the effects on the worlds co2 levels that further oil/gas drilling will cause, if they gave any credence to Texas's use of the court in this way. Now this case has at least a small basis in facts[unlike the case brought by Trump's lackeys] , but in a federal system , would not, and should not get to first base with the supreme court. By refusing to hear the case, they are simply reinforcing states rights. As you would expect from such a conservative bench. They dont want the rest of their lives on the court dominated by individual states bringing hopeless ideological cases [and it would be dem and repubs] , none of which would succeed, but would still stuff up the running of the court.
