the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[BradInATX 9208]

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Ugh our state is the fucking worst. 

Texas rules. But yeah, the only thing saving us from having the most embarrassing slate of elected leaders is Kentucky. What a bunch of crooks and fools we have representing us. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by BradInATX

[TwiceHorn 31463]

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Can someone quickly point out the craziest of the crazy in the TX filing?  I ain’t got time to go through 154 pages of Paxton’s bullshit.

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

This is the most infrequently invoked basis for S.Ct. jurisdiction of them all.  It is usually invoked in water rights or border disputes between states, where the real parties in interest are the states themselves, not some subset of state citizens, or state officials or agencies.

This means the Supreme Court would act as the trial court, ruling in the first instance on the dispute.  

As a threshold matter, I think the State of Texas lacks standing to bring this claim.  The state is not disenfranchised, nor does it have any more than generalized injury by whatever the other states do with their elections.

As far as the rest of it, it's the usual complaints about irregularities throwing the whole election into question.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene, but nothing new.

['stache 21813]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I motion for the secession of Austin to become the People's Republic of Austin, separate from this hideous beast.

I would move there.

[RDCanecutter 26428]

12 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Cruz is one green cap and a cigar away from being a less-politically-successful imitation of Fidel Cahtro.

[Brisketexan 105123]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

This is the most infrequently invoked basis for S.Ct. jurisdiction of them all.  It is usually invoked in water rights or border disputes between states, where the real parties in interest are the states themselves, not some subset of state citizens, or state officials or agencies.

This means the Supreme Court would act as the trial court, ruling in the first instance on the dispute.  

As a threshold matter, I think the State of Texas lacks standing to bring this claim.  The state is not disenfranchised, nor does it have any more than generalized injury by whatever the other states do with their elections.

As far as the rest of it, it's the usual complaints about irregularities throwing the whole election into question.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene, but nothing new.

This -- invoking the original jurisdiction is a clever trick, but I think you have all kinds of problems beyond that, as you noted.

I know people who have litigated such cases.  Typically, you really don't get "in front of" SCOTUS.  They appoint another judge to handle the actual litigation, and then the recommended decision goes up to SCOTUS for action, like a magistrate's recommendation to the district court.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Good for Krebs

 

[Brisketexan 105123]

8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Good for Krebs

 

That's a good lawsuit, actually.  He's a public figure, so the bar for defamation and similar claims is high....but calls for violence should clear that bar.

[Tuco 5076]

45 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Holy shit, Texans should be beyond embarrassed by this 

I'd talk shit, but I assume Nebraska will join the lawsuit in the next 24 hours. 

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

But, this does allow them to actually introduce evidence at the SC level, right?  

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

The rarely seen double posts from double posters.

[atomheartbevo 89659]

36 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Texas has lost the right to rip on Oklahoma, Arkansas, etc. what a fucking embarrassment. It’s not some wacko like Powell or Rudy but your fucking state attorney general. What a disgusting tactic to get straight to scotus. If the court rules in favor of Texas it’s time for another civil war and I’m not fucking joking.

Paxton could be angling for some kind of pardon.  

[TwiceHorn 31463]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This -- invoking the original jurisdiction is a clever trick, but I think you have all kinds of problems beyond that, as you noted.

I know people who have litigated such cases.  Typically, you really don't get "in front of" SCOTUS.  They appoint another judge to handle the actual litigation, and then the recommended decision goes up to SCOTUS for action, like a magistrate's recommendation to the district court.

My understanding as well.  And things move at a glacial pace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._New_Mexico_and_Colorado

[Captainant 27661]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Paxton could be angling for some kind of pardon.  

Paxton is facing jeopardy from state laws, not federal though I thought? At least his securities fraud charges are state charges

[TwiceHorn 31463]

20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd talk shit, but I assume Nebraska will join the lawsuit in the next 24 hours. 

But, this does allow them to actually introduce evidence at the SC level, right?  

Not necessarily.  In the usual water rights case, there aren't too many procedural barriers to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In this case, I think there are a number of preliminary questions, namely the ability of the State of Texas to assert "voters rights" claims against other states that may preclude the Supreme Court hearing this at all.

As brisket notes, the usual course of action is that a "special master" is appointed by the Court to take evidence and make a record, and a recommendation as to outcome on which the Court decides.

I don't believe Texas is a proper plaintiff, nor are the defendant states proper defendants.  

I'm not sure the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss from the defendant states on these grounds or appoint a master to do so.  In the event, nothing will happen in a timeframe that would affect the outcome of this election, I don't believe.

Edited December 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

35 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Cruz is one green cap and a cigar away from being a less-politically-successful imitation of Fidel Cahtro.

I picture him more of being a Cuban Lampwick.

[AnTiM 1666]

I am not nearly so Texas proud as I was yesterday.  Paxton, I find it hard to believe a true Texan who knows our state history can be the utter piece of worthless crap you appear to be.

[RDCanecutter 26428]

20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd talk shit, but I assume Nebraska will join the lawsuit in the next 24 hours.

Same here. I assume that Mo Brooks is furiously trying to explain it to Tuberville, who keeps saying "uh huh, uh huh" while playing Crush The Castle II on his phone.

[Dahobbs 17534]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not necessarily.  In the usual water rights case, there aren't too many procedural barriers to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In this case, I think there are a number of preliminary questions, namely the ability of the State of Texas to assert "voters rights" claims against other states that may preclude the Supreme Court hearing this at all.

I don't believe Texas is a proper plaintiff, nor are the defendant states proper defendants.  

Speaking of bar complaints, I think this thing deserves some. 

[Hanrahan 1306]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

This is the most infrequently invoked basis for S.Ct. jurisdiction of them all.  It is usually invoked in water rights or border disputes between states, where the real parties in interest are the states themselves, not some subset of state citizens, or state officials or agencies.

This means the Supreme Court would act as the trial court, ruling in the first instance on the dispute.  

As a threshold matter, I think the State of Texas lacks standing to bring this claim.  The state is not disenfranchised, nor does it have any more than generalized injury by whatever the other states do with their elections.

As far as the rest of it, it's the usual complaints about irregularities throwing the whole election into question.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene, but nothing new.

Pennsylvania should promptly make a jury demand.

[Dahobbs 17534]

Does anyone know who the Lawrence Joseph is that is listed as "Special Counsel" to the attorney general?  I can't find any information about him. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

I picture him more of being a Cuban Lampwick.

Good movie.

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

PA should promptly file a “Mind your own business and go fuck yourself” motion. 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not necessarily.  In the usual water rights case, there aren't too many procedural barriers to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In this case, I think there are a number of preliminary questions, namely the ability of the State of Texas to assert "voters rights" claims against other states that may preclude the Supreme Court hearing this at all.

As brisket notes, the usual course of action is that a "special master" is appointed by the Court to take evidence and make a record, and a recommendation as to outcome on which the Court decides.

I don't believe Texas is a proper plaintiff, nor are the defendant states proper defendants.  

I'm not sure the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss from the defendant states on these grounds or appoint a master to do so.  In the event, nothing will happen in a timeframe that would affect the outcome of this election, I don't believe.

When all else fails, RTFM. Or the Supreme Court rules in this case.  As can be seen from the filing, Texas has sought "leave" or permission to file a complaint commencing an action against the other states.

According to Supreme Court Rule 17, the defendants have 60 days in which to file a response in opposition, at which time they would presumably raise the standing issue and all the other reasons the Supreme Court shouldn't take the case.  It would appear that the Court would rule on that before deciding to proceed and appoint the special master referenced above.

[lemonlime 5503]

When all else fails, RTFM. Or the Supreme Court rules in this case.  As can be seen from the filing, Texas has sought "leave" or permission to file a complaint commencing an action against the other states.
According to Supreme Court Rule 17, the defendants have 60 days in which to file a response in opposition, at which time they would presumably raise the standing issue and all the other reasons the Supreme Court shouldn't take the case.  It would appear that the Court would rule on that before deciding to proceed and appoint the special master referenced above.

So PA would have until after the inauguration to respond? Or is there some mechanism by which Texas could request an expedited schedule?

[HenryJames 66049]

 

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

Aw, gee, that's a shame.

[Biff Tannen 45682]

4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

they all have it

[mchookem 16334]

oh dear...i wonder who she got it from? 🤔

[DigglerontheHoof 21196]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

they all have it

and, because deadly karma seems to be powerless against this cabal, they'll all be fine.  They'll probably pass it on to others who might die, but they'll be fine.  Cunts. 

[Biff Tannen 45682]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

and, because deadly karma seems to be powerless against this cabal, they'll all be fine.  They'll probably pass it on to others who might die, but they'll be fine.  Cunts. 

Seriously.  This has to be the simulation fucking with us.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26452]

2 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

What an embarrassment.

That's not a lawsuit, that's a request for a pardon. 

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

and, because deadly karma seems to be powerless against this cabal has access to expensive treatments and healthcare the rest of America does not, they'll all be fine.  They'll probably pass it on to others who might die, but they'll be fine.  Cunts. 

fify

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That's not a lawsuit, that's a request for a pardon. 

Trump has a list so I guess this is Paxton's way of getting added to it. Transactional and all.

[Gatorubet 30237]

This -- invoking the original jurisdiction is a clever trick, but I think you have all kinds of problems beyond that, as you noted.

Open floodgates, yada yada

Ain’t nobody got time for this to be a way to dodge cert.

[Neonmoon 38129]

 

[Underdog 28625]

[TexasEd 8066]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Pardon fishing. By embarrassing the state. 

  

30 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That's not a lawsuit, that's a request for a pardon. 

 

Which of Paxton's crimes are Federal vs State?

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by TexasEd

[Bozo_Casanova 26452]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Ugh our state is the fucking worst. 

Our state is the best but our statewide elected officials suck because the TDP only knows how to fail. 

[TexasEd 8066]

 

42 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

 She probably got it from a Giuliani fart.

 

He should have worn a diaper on his butt like this guy.  Maybe that's why Trump wears diapers too.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

 

 

His name is not on a piece of dogshit. I don't feel like that's enough to start sucking his dick just yet.

I mean the guy works for Ken Paxton. Anybody who hasn't resigned from that office in protest is suspect, imo.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

11 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

  

 

Which of Paxton's crimes are Federal vs State?

 

Supposedly, he is under investigation by the FBI for his shenanigans with Nate Paul.

I believe federal authorities declined to do anything w/r/to his securities fraud deal, or he got a minor peepee whack from the SEC.

[TexasEd 8066]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

His name is not on a piece of dogshit. I don't feel like that's enough to start sucking his dick just yet.

I mean the guy works for Ken Paxton. Anybody who hasn't resigned from that office in protest is suspect, imo.

 

 

What about the whistle blowers that were fired?

[elfenix 34238]

3 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

What an embarrassment.

this is definitely the "baffle them with your bullshit" part of lawyering

[TwiceHorn 31463]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

His name is not on a piece of dogshit. I don't feel like that's enough to start sucking his dick just yet.

I mean the guy works for Ken Paxton. Anybody who hasn't resigned from that office in protest is suspect, imo.

 

 

He's an Edith Jones and Alito clerk, 11 year lawyer.  Total FedSoc hack, smart guy, unqualified to be SG of Texas.

Smart enough, evidently to separate himself from this bullshit.

[Horndog 2228]

19 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

That's what happens when you release the Kraken. 

[F250 28772]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

It was that cloud of Covid Ass Gas that Rudy sprayed her way.

 

[Bookman 4639]

The MAGA tears today are extra salty. And in abundant supply as well.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

43 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

What about the whistle blowers that were fired?

 

I'll allow it.

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

38 minutes ago, Horndog said:

That's what happens when you release the Kraken. 

 

23 minutes ago, F250 said:

It was that cloud of Covid Ass Gas that Rudy sprayed her way.

 

 

 

When she said "realease the kraken," who knew she meant ol' Rude Dog spewing a cloud Covid infected ass gas in the middle of a legislative hearing?

 

 

[Dr. Teeth 5844]

Dems should have filed suits or requested recounts in TX and FL. I have no doubt that Abbott and DeSantis would have done anything to help Trump including switching votes.
 

Fortunately for democracy, the right states went to Biden. If it had been TX or FL, I guarantee they would help overturn. 
 

[Js1 85325]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Dems should have filed suits or requested recounts in TX and FL. I have no doubt that Abbott and DeSantis would have done anything to help Trump including switching votes.
 

Fortunately for democracy, the right states went to Biden. If it had been TX or FL, I guarantee they would help overturn. 
 

Notice how Democrats didn't contest a thing in North Carolina? A state Trump won by about 75,000 votes?  Less than the margin in PA and Michigan.