Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

wildcat09

wildcat09 29251

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

It should just be this: 

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31275

Posted
Posted

If anyone cares, I looked up some of the briefs on Supreme Court original jurisdiction in the Arizona v. California case linked by Tom Goldstein in his SCOTUSBlog editorial, which had the dissent by Alito and Thomas.

This is the US' brief on whether they should exercise jurisdiction.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O150/124942/20191209153732212_No. 150 Original State of Arizona.pdf

The discussion of the factors is at pp. 7-9.  The really pithy quote is this:

“[t]he model case for invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction is a dispute between States of such seriousness that it would amount to casus belli if the States were fully sovereign.”

Although it uses "discretionary,"  I think that's a bit of a misnomer, because as lawdogs who took a federal courts class know, "federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," even when the Constitution gives them jurisdiction, and have a duty to examine their own jurisdiction every time they take up a case.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29177

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

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.

i got a pit in my stomach right when they went to the breaking news graphics.

i shouldn't have, but i did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31275

Posted
Posted (edited)

Where is it??? I'm on SCOTUS docket page and it isn't there?

Oh, hahaha, fucktards are still filing motions to intervene and file amicus briefs.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32338

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

 

Quote 

  ORDER IN PENDING CASE

TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of 


complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of
the Constitution.  Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State
conducts its elections.  All other pending motions are dismissed
as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. 


                 CERTIORARI GRANTED

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

I was hoping for a more scathing opinion but this is good enough. None of the justices would grant any relief. That’s a good thing. 
 

Basically Alito and Thomas would have allowed the felon to file it but then dismiss it whereas the majority just said you're so full of shit you don’t get to file at all.

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

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

NSIAP, but an angle on the story from Texas Tribune:  https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/?utm_source=Texas+Tribune+Newsletters&utm_campaign=201d153c37-trib-newsletters-breaking-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9a68d8efc-201d153c37-101204549&mc_cid=201d153c37&mc_eid=e270f9fe31

There was no way they were going to let the EC voters head to their State Capitols with this kind of ambiguity this weekend.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104613

Posted
Posted
Just now, Snacks said:

Fucking Clarence....

The thing is, their dissenting opinion -- setting aside ALL consideration of the subject matter, politics, merits, etc. -- is fucking legally gotdamn stupid and wrong.

The court has jurisdiction to hear suits between states.  We all get that.

BUT, if the suit is NOT actually between States -- that is, the capacity in which it is brought is actually on behalf of individual citizens of a State, and the State of Texas (as a distinct entity --- a State) has no standing to bring the claim that it seeks to file......then it is not a suit between the states.  It is in reality a suit of "A suit on behalf of the citizens of Texas, filed by the AG of Texas, against the State of Pennsylvania."  And SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction for that case.  Cases that facially lack jurisdiction can and should be dismissed by the court.  And if leave is required to even file the case, and the court determines that the case isn't of the nature that would satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for leave to be granted -- then just deny leave, period.  Which is what 7 of them got right.

Alito thinks he's smarter than he is. He's not.  And Clarence....well, that dumbass just finds a different dog to follow around, playing second fiddle to moronity.  He did much better when he had Scalia to follow -- at least Scalia was super smart.

  • Hook 'Em 3
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...