the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[AnTiM 1659]

Somebody call the Russians to come and get his ass.

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

You all know that Dotard is losing his shit right about now. 

Somebody call the Russians to come and get his ass.

[DigDug 1649]

 

[wildcat09 29224]

No noted dissents. I have a feeling Roberts locked Alito and Thomas in a closet for the day. 

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

19 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The average citizen gets more done in a couple of hours than those two.

Oh, the problem isn't that they aren't getting anything done.

The problem is that they aren't getting anything done that doesn't directly relate to lining their own pockets.

[Gatorubet 30083]

Does this mean Ttom gets to lock SCOTUS up as traitors too?

[TexEx15 17456]

 

['stache 21759]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Does this mean Ttom gets to lock SCOTUS up as traitors too?

You know the answer to that question. Anyone who fails to install dear leader for life is part of the conspiracy and they just love dreaming of non-existant tribunals.

[Bookman 4610]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

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

PA should countersue. They can say that by only allowing one dropbox per county Texas violated the equal protection clause. As a remedy, the only votes that should count are from the blue counties.

['stache 21759]

3 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

SCOTUS made no comments. Who the fuck is this guy?

[Js1 85095]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

SCOTUS made no comments. Who the fuck is this guy?

Think that’s what the PA SC said. 

[Gatorubet 30083]

PA should countersue. They can say that by only allowing one dropbox per county Texas violated the equal protection clause. As a remedy, the only votes that should count are from the blue counties.

Fuck that. I want to see Texas sue Ohio over that Cincinnati chili abomination.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

The word on MAGA Twitter is that they denied the PA suit because the Texas suit contains the same set of issues but also the other states, because PA does not have sufficient EVs to change result alone.

 

 

Alito as Ninja:

 

[Sbbruin 21708]

18 minutes ago, DigDug said:

 

I like this in the comments

[TwiceHorn 31262]

9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

SCOTUS made no comments. Who the fuck is this guy?

An actor.  Toby on the West Wing.

That's from the response from the PA defendants

[TexasHooch 5117]

Quote

SCOTUS made no comments. Who the fuck is this guy?

That's what the opposition lawyers argued.

Edited December 8, 2020 by TexasHooch

[Js1 85095]

Like reading on air that his dog died

 

[TwiceHorn 31262]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The word on MAGA Twitter is that they denied the PA suit because the Texas suit contains the same set of issues but also the other states, because PA does not have sufficient EVs to change result alone.

 

 

Alito as Ninja:

 

Official lawsuits!! 🤡🤡

[Beau Vine 53983]

1 hour ago, DigDug said:

lol

Maybe it's because I have a PhD and am intimately familiar with hypothesis testing so it hits close to home, but that's the most mind-blowingly stupid thing I've seen in this entire episode.  One of my idiot undergrads could tear that hypothesis testing apart.  

[Ted Lange 16041]

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Like reading on air that his dog died

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Maybe it's because I have a PhD and am intimately familiar with hypothesis testing so it hits close to home, but that's the most mind-blowingly stupid thing I've seen in this entire episode.  One of my idiot undergrads could tear that hypothesis testing apart.  

I read this in the voice of Comic Book Guy. 

[Brisketexan 104557]

26 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

 

22 minutes ago, 'stache said:

SCOTUS made no comments. Who the fuck is this guy?

 

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Think that’s what the PA SC said. 

Yeah, that whole sequence pissed me off.  He's quoting SCOTUS, and he's actually quoting one of the advocates.....from the state court fight, not the SCOTUS fight.  That's lying, and it fucking pisses me off.  He is literally "fake newsing" this, and it's harmful, just as Trump's relentless lies are harmful.  That guy should be negged as fuck.

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Official lawsuits!! 🤡🤡

As opposed to the, you know, unofficial ones...

[Beau Vine 53983]

53 minutes ago, Js1 said:

SCOTUS was just scared of Ted’s legal brilliance 

 

There is no clearer way to convey "This is a fucking waste of our time" than to write a one-sentence denial and nothing else.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Beau Vine

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

There is no clearer way to convey "This is a fucking waste of our time" than to write a one-sentence denial and nothing else.

That's actually what they're supposed to write.  They aren't supposed to create commentary or controversy where none is needed.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's actually what they're supposed to write.  They aren't supposed to create commentary or controversy where none is needed.

So the Cleveland Stadium letter tactic would be frowned upon?

[aggie08 21424]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's actually what they're supposed to write.  They aren't supposed to create commentary or controversy where none is needed.

Not even one timely drawing of a dick? Have a sense of humor, Supreme Court.

[staboner 4957]

46 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

More like 

of course it has been known to cause GIGANTISM

[Scheiss Meister 8399]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's actually what they're supposed to write.  They aren't supposed to create commentary or controversy where none is needed.

So I guess that if the one sentence had been "Get the fuck out of here with that shit, motherfucker." it wouldn't have met that standard on commentary or controversy.  Still would have rocked.

[aggie08 21424]

Apparently, Louisiana and Alabama are trying to join in on the Texas filing. Which on its face is hilarious and predictable that two of the dumbest states would pile on, but you know ESPN is just itching to award Trump the Presidency once enough SEC states join.

[TwiceHorn 31262]

Note that that is on the request for injunctive relief pending filing a writ of certiorari.  Like the other PA case that is up there, Boockvar.  In the other case, an injunction was denied except to segregate votes received after close of the polls.

The first case is still pending cert and will not be resolved in time to affect the election.

It will be interesting to see if this case gets a cert petition.  Both of them present interesting legal questions, neither justifies undoing the PA election.

Edited December 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Shaddie 1638]

I don’t get why trumpers think SCOTUS will just roll over and give him anything he wants. 
 

All of them know their decisions will be dissected for a very long time. They also don’t want their names mentioned in the same breath with Joseph McCarthy, J Edgar Hoover and Nixon. I know trump doesn’t care about this but when Cruz and that lot start thinking about this I hope they reverse course. As a guy who always voted Republican before 2016 I plan on actually doing volunteer work for Democrat candidates to get these cancers out of Texas as soon as possible. From a guy that can’t be bothered to do any civics work ever.  

[A-Tex Devil 2445]

Response to Paxton suit is in:

Spoiler

 

[Gil Bang 25897]

 

[TwiceHorn 31262]

1 minute ago, Shaddie said:

I don’t get why trumpers think SCOTUS will just roll over and give him anything he wants. 

Shit a good number of people on this board have thought that.

[Brisketexan 104557]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Note that that is on the request for injunctive relief pending filing a writ of certiorari.  Like the other PA case that is up there.  In the other case, an injunction was denied except to segregate votes received after close of the polls.

The first case is still pending cert and will not be resolved in time to affect the election.

It will be interesting to see if this case gets a cert petition.  Both of them present interesting legal questions, neither justifies undoing the PA election.

And if you can't get relief that will materially change the status of the parties, it doesn't matter if there are interesting questions pending -- the court doesn't issue advisory opinions.

It sure looks like the GOP strategy was "okay, we've spotted some defects in voting systems that we think we can make hay about.  Let's wait until all the votes are cast and the election is over, and if it doesn't go our way, we'll use those arguments to nuke the whole election and at worst get a do-over!"  That was a terrible strategy, for all the reasons mentioned by numerous courts.  If you are aware of a defect that is likely to harm you, then you need to litigate it BEFORE the election, so you don't ask a court to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands/millions of people who have ALREADY VOTED.

It's a clever strategy....totally undermined by how fucking stupid it is.

[Gil Bang 25897]

 

[TwiceHorn 31262]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And if you can't get relief that will materially change the status of the parties, it doesn't matter if there are interesting questions pending -- the court doesn't issue advisory opinions.

It sure looks like the GOP strategy was "okay, we've spotted some defects in voting systems that we think we can make hay about.  Let's wait until all the votes are cast and the election is over, and if it doesn't go our way, we'll use those arguments to nuke the whole election and at worst get a do-over!"  That was a terrible strategy, for all the reasons mentioned by numerous courts.  If you are aware of a defect that is likely to harm you, then you need to litigate it BEFORE the election, so you don't ask a court to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands/millions of people who have ALREADY VOTED.

It's a clever strategy....totally undermined by how fucking stupid it is.

I'm not sure either of the suits seek ONLY wild-ass injunctive relief.  If they have claims in their original complaint for declaratory relief with perhaps a prospective injunction, it would seem they survive mootness and case/controversy. Standing might be an issue then, though.

I find it interesting that the plaintiffs in Boockvar are still seeking cert, at least thus far.  It will be interesting to see if the Kelly plaintiffs even file, since their "Kraken" remedy is off the table.

[Shaddie 1638]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

It's a clever strategy....totally undermined by how fucking stupid it is.

So help me here. You are saying it is totally on point for Trump? I will have to research all the trump decisions to see if you are correct.

 

 

 

 

Ok you are correct.  

[Brisketexan 104557]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure either of the suits seek ONLY wild-ass injunctive relief.  If they have claims in their original complaint for declaratory relief with perhaps a prospective injunction, it would seem they survive mootness and case/controversy. Standing might be an issue then, though.

I find it interesting that the plaintiffs in Boockvar are still seeking cert, at least thus far.  It will be interesting to see if the Kelly plaintiffs even file, since their "Kraken" remedy is off the table.

Agreed as to bolded.  And that's something we all discussed back when laches first came up.  If they want to fix something that's wrong with a voting procedure going forward, go for it (like the possible Penn Const. defect).  But you aren't going to get to lie in wait, and then disenfranchise millions of voters who innocently and justifiably relied on a process that nobody said was illegal (in large part because you delayed in ASKING anyone to declare it illegal).

Of course, even then, these requests for prospective relief can be cured/mooted with new legislative action.  And even though "don't let anyone vote" is the GOP strategy, I don't think they can keep it up for the long term.  Or maybe even the short term.   They'll have some wins, no doubt, but the people, including their own voters, now expect easy voting, relatively easy mail-in voting, etc.

[Gatorubet 30083]

Texas’ Injunctive request to SCOTUS states that even the 1/20/21 inauguration of the President will not moot their request to invalidate the other states’ certification as unconstitutional - and allow those state legislatures to reappoint electors.

So no problemo.

[Chooky 13302]

This will be the first time I've ever actively sought out Lou Dobbs' show to watch from beginning to end. 

[TwiceHorn 31262]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agreed as to bolded.  And that's something we all discussed back when laches first came up.  If they want to fix something that's wrong with a voting procedure going forward, go for it (like the possible Penn Const. defect).  But you aren't going to get to lie in wait, and then disenfranchise millions of voters who innocently and justifiably relied on a process that nobody said was illegal (in large part because you delayed in ASKING anyone to declare it illegal).

Of course, even then, these requests for prospective relief can be cured/mooted with new legislative action.  And even though "don't let anyone vote" is the GOP strategy, I don't think they can keep it up for the long term.  Or maybe even the short term.   They'll have some wins, no doubt, but the people, including their own voters, now expect easy voting, relatively easy mail-in voting, etc.

Both Kelly and Boockvar present kind of interesting questions about how far the state (judicial branch in Boockvar, and executive? in Kelly) can go in running elections in legally suspect ways without invoking federal constitutional scrutiny.

In Boockvar the PA Supreme Court rewrote the legislative law, and in Kelly, the executive implemented legislation that everyone should have known was not constitutional under their own constitution. The same damned law, Act 77. Fucking weird stuff.

I'd kind of like to see the answers to those two questions when immediate effects are off the table.  Maybe also by a more balanced Supreme Court.

Edited December 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104557]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Texas’ Injunctive request to SCOTUS states that even the 1/20/21 inauguration of the President will not moot their request to invalidate the other states’ certification as unconstitutional - and allow those state legislatures to reappoint electors.

So no problemo.

Allow them to reappoint electors......to do what, exactly?  Cast a vote that's already been cast, in an election that has been decided?  The relief HAS to be granted prior to irrevocable action (like actually swearing in a new president).  What Paxton is asking for is nonsense.  Which is actually par for the Paxton course.  His problem is that in Texas, with super-favorable GOP-heavy courts in many places, "nonsense" is often plenty to get what he wants.

[DigDug 1649]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

 

#50.  You'd think they would get tired of all the winning by now.

 

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

1-51?

 

 

23 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Sit down bitch 

[BrickHorn 18186]

1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

 

That appears to be a quote from PA’s lawyers, not the Court. 

[Underdog 28445]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

1-51?

 

ComeonTed.gif

[Gatorubet 30083]

Texas also says that even without fraud or nefarious intent, the mail-in ballots not subjected to the ballot integrity process (read: non-in person day of voting ballots) cannot be counted. Any of them.

This effort to ignore the votes of those defendant states’ citizens is alleged by Texas to be for the purpose of - wait for it - avoiding “chaos” and bringing “some sort of order” to the election process.

[Gil Bang 25897]

 

[DigDug 1649]

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

28 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Texas’ Injunctive request to SCOTUS states that even the 1/20/21 inauguration of the President will not moot their request to invalidate the other states’ certification as unconstitutional - and allow those state legislatures to reappoint electors.

So no problemo.

I don’t understand what this means

[Underdog 28445]

PA Lt Gov should just make a trip down to Texas and kick every legislators ass, left or right.