Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"Golly, why shouldn't a disputed election be settled by the supreme court?".

Fuck you Marco. Pure gaslighting. 

it's also just stupid.  that's not how the law works.  

1) what is the rule?

2) does this case fit the rule?

 

don't even try to say why abortion was resolved at the scotus so you can see if this case should come out the same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Texas just making up new states and shit.
 

 


d1799c1fc7b022cc1306c484301429db.jpg

 

That non-existent, fictitious entities attempt to be amicii curiae in support of Texas is about all you need to know about this.

Also, these nutbags can't help but say the quiet part out loud.  They want a national law governing an election that is constitutionally a state-by-state process.

These fuckers love to talk about the constitution, but they wouldn't know it if it bit them in the ass.  Except Second Amendment means PATRIOT EAGLE FREEDUMB GUN!

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDCanecutter

RDCanecutter 26891

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That non-existent, fictitious entities attempt to be amicii curiae in support of Texas is about all you need to know about this.

I am declaring the area within walking distance of my house "Gondor."
And no, we're not a state. We are Gondor. Gondor has no need of the US, nor does Gondor need a king.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I am declaring the area within walking distance of my house "Gondor."
And no, we're not a state. We are Gondor. Gondor has no need of the US, nor does Gondor need a king.

You could certainly do with a better nightclub district, though, because man, are those Gondorian parties dull.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53502

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Don't not seat all 126. But if the elections in Georgia, Michigan, Wisky and PA have to be invalidated, then the signatories of the letter from those 4 states shouldn't be sat.  

  • Rick Allen (GA-12)
  • Jack Bergman (MI-1)
  • Drew Ferguson (GA-3)
  • Bill Huizenga (MI-2)
  • Dan Meuser (PA-9)
  • Scott Perry (PA-10)
  • Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14)
  • Austin Scott (GA-8)
  • Glenn Thompson (PA-15)
  • Tim Walberg (MI-7)
  • Doug Collins (GA-9) -> successor Andrew Clyde
  • Barry Loudermilk (GA-11)
  • John Joyce (PA-13)
  • Fred Keller (PA-12)
  • Mike Kelly (PA-16)
  • Jody Hice (GA-10)
  • Tom Tiffany (WI-7)
  • John Moolennar (MI-4)

These 17 (+1 successor) should not be sat because, by their own logic, their elections were fraudulent. 

They would use that as tacit admission that the elections were fraudulent by the dem house leaders. 

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

Fudge Nuggets 19455

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

I mean, 5 pages would be awesome, but 5 sentences would more than suffice.

"This is a blatant, brazen attempt to circumvent normal Court proceedings to change the agreed-upon laws of a United States election--in states not of your own--after-the-fact because one side does not like the results. That they are willing to undertake these actions, even at the expense of disenfranchising millions of voters, is an affront to our democracy. It is their intent to use this Court to, by proxy, give legitimacy and merit to their falsehoods and purposely misleading claims that did not stand up in lower courts, thus continuing to undermine our elections. We dismiss this motion with no dissenters. Valley High football rules!"

I'm not a lawyer (obviously), but it doesn't even need to dip into partisan politics.

My original posting of "Mind your own business and go fuck yourself." is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22143

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Isn't the theory that they are being cowards and waiting until Monday after the electoral college votes so they can be like, "welp, too late anyway"?

No, they are working diligently on a very straightforward written rebuke of the absurdity that is the request.

Lol, JK, the conservative majority is thinking through how to react without disappointing their god-king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4339

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I am declaring the area within walking distance of my house "Gondor."
And no, we're not a state. We are Gondor. Gondor has no need of the US, nor does Gondor need a king.

I’ve declared my 6 foot socially distanced radius to be the great state of Molestan I have also declared Molestan to have 1000 electoral votes. On Monday, the Molestan electors will cast their 1000 votes for Willie Nelson. You’re welcome, America. 
 

On Tuesday, the great state of Molestan will convene a subcommittee to investigate a less embarrassing name. I’ll submit that it’s still a better name than New California or New New Mexico or whatever.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27019

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-dont-just-deny-texas-original-action-decimate-it/

awesome editorial from surprising source.

Except the millions on-board with the president are unlikely to read it; those who will, won't accept it.

You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I just read that in another case Alito and Thomas dissented in a denial of original jurisdiction on their belief that jurisdiction is mandatory and not discretionary. So it looks like SCOTUS by majority will probably deny the motion for leave to file the complaint, but Thomas and Alito will likely dissent on the same grounds, which will give trumpkins the ability to completely misrepresent that they found fraud and would have reversed the election, even though it will be a purely technical dissent without comment on the merits.

For once, they are not wrong.  All of the language that creates state v. state jurisdiction is mandatory.

But, the declination of the exercise of state vs. state jurisdiction isn't really a discretionary exercise.  The Court has developed a doctrine of appropriateness that considers a variety of factors and takes into account that it is really not set up at all as a trial court.  Mainly, it seems focused on determining whether the case is really state v. state and not something masquerading as state v. state, which is clearly Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. 

I dunno, whatever is not mandatory I suppose is discretionary to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

I am the only one getting nervous that the SC hasn't already come out and smacked this shit down?

 

54 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You are not. 

Don't sweat it.  This is a bigger deal that denying cert after taking a vote at a cert conference or denying injunctive relief.

It's probably going to take a couple of days.

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

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted (edited)

Remember a few pages back when we were talking about the article that @bolverk posted?

This guy gets it too:

This is coordinated, this is gaining momentum, Trump knows this and has primed the pump, he's greased the skids. He's going to lean and lean and lean. He weighs a lot. He won't have to lean on Brett and Amy for too long before they move the direction he's headed. That's two. He only needs several and he's got it.

Tell me again why Roberts, who people thought wouldn't let the impeachment stuff get out of control, would stay firm? Who was rightthere with Citizens United and the VRA. Why would he stay firm? Winners write the propaganda and if Trump were to win, the ones who swing it become heroes.

 

Edit: Stiegler is a federal appellate lawyer in the Third Circuit, so not an uber authority, but not a rando person like me.

Edited by Mrs Whiggins
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46166

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Remember a few pages back when we were talking about the article that @bolverk posted?

This guy gets it too:

This is coordinated, this is gaining momentum, Trump knows this and has primed the pump, he's greased the skids. He's going to lean and lean and lean. He weighs a lot. He won't have to lean on Brett and Amy for too long before they move the direction he's headed. That's two. He only needs several and he's got it.

Tell me again why Roberts, who people thought wouldn't let the impeachment stuff get out of control, would stay firm? Who was rightthere with Citizens United and the VRA. Why would he stay firm? Winners write the propaganda and if Trump were to win, the ones who swing it become heroes.

 

Edit: Stiegler is a federal appellate lawyer in the Third Circuit, so not an uber authority, but not a rando person like me.

That's giving a lot of credit to a bunch of idiots that have already lost 56 cases.  Usually with these fucksticks, the actual answer is they are dumb criminals.  Not to say that we shouldn't be vigilant, but suddenly having them become evil geniuses seems...unlikely.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18447

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not sure what that means

The Court has original jurisdiction over this case, meaning it is effectively the trial court. In previous cases, the Court had discretionary appellate jurisdiction. It was therefore easier to dispose of an appeal the latter and comparing the timelines is not apples-to-apples.

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

Bozo_Casanova 26851

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The Court has original jurisdiction over this case, meaning it is effectively the trial court. In previous cases, the Court had discretionary appellate jurisdiction. It was therefore easier to dispose of an appeal the latter and comparing the timelines is not apples-to-apples.

Ah, that makes sense thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
  • Author
Posted

how much money would you pay to watch a live feed of one of trump's aides walking into the oval office and saying, "sir, the supreme court has just issued their decision.  you won.  they overturned it.  you're still the president."

pause for reaction...

"fuck you asshole, you still fucking lost.  also i quit."

i can't think of a better way to see 2020 end.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22143

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

how much money would you pay to watch a live feed of one of trump's aides walking into the oval office and saying, "sir, the supreme court has just issued their decision.  you won.  they overturned it.  you're still the president."

pause for reaction...

"fuck you asshole, you still fucking lost.  also i quit."

i can't think of a better way to see 2020 end.

I’d shit on his desk right in front of him too, and relish as the Secret Service just laugh their asses off. They have to hate him as much or more than the rest of us.

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

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Not sure what that means

Meaning in all likelihood it is going to draw an opinion, unlike the two other procedures, which are simple yes/no votes typically reported by the court as yes or no, sometimes elaborated upon by a dissent of a page or so.

There's a lot of shit to sort through, and while the conclusion, I believe, is foregone, the precise grounds on which to deny it will take some deliberation.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87183

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Remember a few pages back when we were talking about the article that @bolverk posted?

This guy gets it too:

This is coordinated, this is gaining momentum, Trump knows this and has primed the pump, he's greased the skids. He's going to lean and lean and lean. He weighs a lot. He won't have to lean on Brett and Amy for too long before they move the direction he's headed. That's two. He only needs several and he's got it.

Tell me again why Roberts, who people thought wouldn't let the impeachment stuff get out of control, would stay firm? Who was rightthere with Citizens United and the VRA. Why would he stay firm? Winners write the propaganda and if Trump were to win, the ones who swing it become heroes.

 

Edit: Stiegler is a federal appellate lawyer in the Third Circuit, so not an uber authority, but not a rando person like me.

This is the last ditch effort. You act like this was a rational, well thought out strategy and 1-56 was just them getting our asses lubed for the SCOTUS buttfucking? All those Trump judges just handing out losses like candy so the real litigation could be assembled by Ken fucking Paxton A week before the electors meet to make it all but official?

Ma’am, go have some wine or egg nog and watch movies. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21800

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This is the last ditch effort. You act like this was a rational, well thought out strategy and 1-56 was just them getting our asses lubed for the SCOTUS buttfucking? All those Trump judges just handing out losses like candy so the real litigation could be assembled by Ken fucking Paxton? 

Ma’am, go have some wine or egg nog and watch movies. 

After these 4 years, it's hard to blame anyone for being just a little bit nervous right now. Until Jan 20, I'm still not entirely sure if facts and reason are allowed to matter yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...