Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

  On 12/10/2020 at 5:36 PM, Sawbonz said:

Well in the already incredibly unlikely scenario laid out where Cali secedes and the federal govt just stands idly by, y’all think it’s unreasonable for Mexico to reassert historic rights? Ok I guess 

Expand  

Yes, unrealistic. It would be far more likely for them to join Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 5:34 PM, BearSchlong said:

So we're going to get a one sentence declination from the scotus, right?

Expand  

That's my guess. The docket shows it as a "Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint" and for preliminary injunctions, etc. My guess is it will be a one sentencer that says the motions are denied. I hope, however, they at least explain why this case is improper to set a precedent to avoid this happening every 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 6:21 PM, 'stache said:
That's my guess. The docket shows it as a "Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint" and for preliminary injunctions, etc. My guess is it will be a one sentencer that says the motions are denied. I hope, however, they at least explain why this case is improper to set a precedent to avoid this happening every 4 years.

Sadly, a purely procedural dismissal will be used by MAGA nation as recognition of the merits not being heard, and so continue the false fraud narrative.

Mothafuckers need sanctioning
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because original jurisdiction is not discretionary, as is appellate jurisdiction by certiorari, I think they're going to have to issue an opinion.

Original jurisdiction over state v. state disputes is also exclusive, meaning no other court has such jurisdiction.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has created an "appropriateness" doctrine to decline jurisdiction over state v. state suits when the fundamental dispute can be heard in another court, presumably without pitting one state against another.  For example, the fact that these same questions have been litigated more than 50 times in state and lower federal courts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 7:38 PM, Hanrahan said:

“The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process...”

giphy.gif

..hehehehe....he said “seditious”
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 7:53 PM, hookem2010 said:
  On 12/10/2020 at 5:43 PM, tx 3 putt said:
limbaugh is all succession talk the first 43 mins. he's not saying he's supporting it but there is plenty of talk out there. 
Expand  

HOW the fuck are you listening to 43+ minutes of rush limbaugh?

Expand  

fifm.  My ears would bleed after 5 mins.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 8:00 PM, Walden Ponderer said:

My favorite part of the Pennsylvania response is that one of the cases they include in their references is "Socialist Labor Party vs. Gilligan". I mean, I don't care what that opinion supports or denies, you gotta love it, right?

Expand  

Well, Ginger was a commie redhead, so yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 7:47 PM, Sbbruin said:

The Preliminary Statement basically tells Texas to get fucked.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy. What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it. The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical 2 analysis positing that the probability of PresidentElect Biden winning the election was “one in a quadrillion.” Bill of Complaint at 6. Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.

Expand  

my prediction: somehow dismissed prior to the merits so the right wingers won't hurt the feelings of the loonies before them.  i do like that they actually went with the quadrillion talk in the filing with scotus.  each one of those justices are used to seeing the most high minded analysis on all sorts of things.  every one of them will immediately recognize it as embarrassingly stupid.  oh, it was 1 in a quadrillion chance that a bunch of votes from detroit would be democratic?  this sounds VERY sophisticated. howeva, that stupidity guarantees an early off ramp.  none of the right wing justices are going to want to have to laugh at texas's evidence, so they'll dismiss it before the merits or without addressing the merits. standing or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 5:30 AM, bolverk said:

Back to that article link I posted above. Here's the full text since The Atlantic has a limited number of monthly views. It's a must read for anyone who questions how serious all this shit is.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Expand  

I believe this author was interviewed on NPR the other day (or maybe it was NYT The Daily).  I can't find it, but it was very good, as is this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 8:32 PM, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

my prediction: somehow dismissed prior to the merits so the right wingers won't hurt the feelings of the loonies before them.  i do like that they actually went with the quadrillion talk in the filing with scotus.  each one of those justices are used to seeing the most high minded analysis on all sorts of things.  every one of them will immediately recognize it as embarrassingly stupid.  oh, it was 1 in a quadrillion chance that a bunch of votes from detroit would be democratic?  this sounds VERY sophisticated. howeva, that stupidity guarantees an early off ramp.  none of the right wing justices are going to want to have to laugh at texas's evidence, so they'll dismiss it before the merits or without addressing the merits. standing or something.

Expand  

I guarantee you Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will take that "study" seriously. They've absolutely got Fox New brain and think it's legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 8:20 PM, Neonmoon said:

So when do expect a response from SCOTUS? Will they wait till after Monday? 

Expand  

Alito will probably call Trump and tell him that he is going to lose because the Texas suit is even too cray for him, but he'll give him a week so he can fleece another $100M from his supporters. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/10/2020 at 9:19 PM, usmc0331horn said:

Soviet Union lite? I remember watching Chernobyl and making fun of the Soviets and how they responded to everything and today's Republicans are quickly becoming them imo.

Expand  

Seems like long ago, but recall back in the fall when people were feeling some sympathy for Zelensky? Trying to fight against Putin's aggression and hang onto the fragile democratic attempts after the Ukrainian election. Desperate for money to purchase weapons and gets a phone call....

Now I expect Zelensky is looking west and saying, "you had it all America and you pissed it all away."

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...