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

Walden Ponderer

Walden Ponderer 12639

Posted
Posted

Any of you lawdogs ever try a case in front of Judge Alcala? She was captain of the King High debate team when I was a freshman, so I've been getting to watch her Facebook feed this whole time, and it's been interesting to hear a Bush appointee's take on the federal courts throughout the last month.

I have been impressed by the number of conservative jurists on her feed who, on strictly political topics, sound like Trumpists but who then pivot on legal issues into, you know... grownups.

I'm sure it's not a universal phenomenon, of course, but it helps me sleep at night.

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

956 Worldwide 35594

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Any of you lawdogs ever try a case in front of Judge Alcala? She was captain of the King High debate team when I was a freshman, so I've been getting to watch her Facebook feed this whole time, and it's been interesting to hear a Bush appointee's take on the federal courts throughout the last month.

I have been impressed by the number of conservative jurists on her feed who, on strictly political topics, sound like Trumpists but who then pivot on legal issues into, you know... grownups.

I'm sure it's not a universal phenomenon, of course, but it helps me sleep at night.

I don’t see it as especially unique, most adults are completely capable of not letting ideology and demagoguery cloud their judgment in areas where they are personally knowledgeable. A lot of them can’t make the next step— “if these clowns are selling me total bullshit here, what does that say about what they tell me elsewhere?”

Lawyers and doctors seem particularly bad on this.  They get accustomed to members of the general public coming to them for advice and expertise and help solving complicated issues.  From there it’s not a huge leap to believing you’re uniquely qualified to do that for all sorts of complicated issues, like tax policy, education, infrastructure, and national security— especially when you and the general public rarely come across the actual experts in those things.  And so you get a lot of doctors and lawyers across all levels of elected government.

The good news is these folks DO usually have the intellectual ability to gain some operating knowledge and expertise, and recognize their blind spots.  Bad news, they still sometimes have brain worms or are awful and you get Ted Cruz and Rand Paul or any number of small-time jerkoffs on city councils and school boards across the fruited plain.
 

I know a lot of doctors who I can can say are perfectly capable of rational thought and have higher than average intelligence. But they have actual bats flying around the “politics” sector of their brain. 

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

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Are the laws surrounding campaigns considered separate i.e. federal law but not 'election' law? As in financing, etc?

Fair point.  There's semantic danger here.

But, the conduct of voting and counting votes in elections is a creature of state law according to the Constitution.  And there's no federal general oversight of that.  At some point what the state does (poll tax, voter intimidation/suppression, etc.) could violate the Constitution or the VRA.

Paxton, who is very much  against federal VRA regulation, for example, seemed to want to create a  general federal oversight of elections that the Constitution firmly delegates to the states.

You are correct that there is considerable federal regulation of the campaign process, and that might be properly considered election law, also.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair point.  There's semantic danger here.

But, the conduct of voting and counting votes in elections is a creature of state law according to the Constitution.  And there's no federal general oversight of that.  At some point what the state does (poll tax, voter intimidation/suppression, etc.) could violate the Constitution or the VRA.

Paxton, who is very much  against federal VRA regulation, for example, seemed to want to create a  general federal oversight of elections that the Constitution firmly delegates to the states.

You are correct that there is considerable federal regulation of the campaign process, and that might be properly considered election law, also.

Thanks for your explanation (and also to @washparkhorn). From my uninformed perspective, Paxton looked to be complaining about a pass to an ineligible receiver and then saying both NCAA and NFL rules were violated and SCOTUS pointed out that his team isn't in the same conference nor does he get to decide what rules the Punxsawtawney Powder Puff League uses. It's all football and it's all law, but it struck me as disingenuous from the outset. My main worry was that the pressure was more than the institution could bear so I was happy to be wrong about that.

I used to follow Ellen Weintraub's twitter account for the FEC, so I believe I got some of those regs mixed up in my head yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46168

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Let’s check in on the sober legal analysis from TexAgs’ most sober and respected Internet Lawyer.

05-DB5049-EFD5-43-DF-B883-7-B6189-FC3-F8

I mean, when you start from a fantasy world, this argument could make sense.  Seriously, these people are living in an alternate universe that resides solely in their heads.  This is dangerous.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55867

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

so this seems like one of those, "which is more likely" games.

either (1) the justices are all secret deep-state agents that (2) fooled trump, or (3) trump intentionally nominated deep-state justices, or (4) they're compromised, or (5) trump is actually playing 5d chess and (6) this is all part of his master plan, or (7) is trump compromised?

or

did trump lose the election?

tough call.

Didja forget about Aggy's Razor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27627

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Catjuggler said:

I'm the same.   Derplahoma when it comes to Trump.     I told my neighbor a couple of weeks ago to kindly fuck off with his civil war bullshit.    Huge effing echo chamber here.    

I see your red number. Been hanging around the the football board? I generally recommend you build up some rep defense before you wade into that mosh pit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Homercles

Homercles 10206

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I just...can’t anymore.  It’s absurd that these people can get away with driving a narrative when there has been absolutely zero evidence of widespread fraud on a scale even remotely close to upending the election in even a single county.  
 

It’s all like my 4yo incessantly whining that she wants to get on the roof despite clear evidence that Santa isn’t up there on a random afternoon in November.  Even Linus with his dumbassery about the Great Pumpkin eventually resigned with a defeated, fatalist ‘maybe next year’ optimism...he didn’t try to rally the peanuts to start smashing all the pumpkins in town.  

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21800

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He is rage-tweeting like crazy this morning.   Bill Barr should probably be packing his bags.  Would not be surprised if he’s fired by end-of-day.  

Nah, he'd have to quit. I think Trump will keep him around as a punching bag...while never once coming to the realization that questioning the competence and allegiance of his own hand-picked appointee refects more on him than Barr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21800

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Lin Wood is bringing fire. It doesn’t matter if you’re 1-57 as long as you win this last one.  Check, PayPal, and BitCoin accepted, not tax deductible.  Stop the steal, Patriots Unite. 
 

AF3941-B0-C7-E1-4257-B883-267-D6-CA9792-

Actually, I think Lin flew a little too close to the grifting sun and has fallen out of favor as an alleged "Democratic plant." That's going to hurt the pocketbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
usmc0331horn

usmc0331horn 995

Posted
Posted

Texags claiming due process is so hilarious to me as if the SC is supposed to somehow take every case, or that this has anything to do with Trump himself. And a bunch of historians on there with their claims of Washington and Jefferson as if Washington didn't crush an armed insurrection of his own citizens or that Jefferson tried to destroy the economy during his Presidency and hypocritically purchase Louisiana territory, which was probably unconstitutional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 44053

Posted
Posted

Well, if you took away every major city in California, California would be red. And you have to because obviously, every major city has fraud that aids the Democrats and not, oh, sheer volumes of Democratic voters. This post election denial is a perfect microcosm for the Trump voter. They think what's rightfully theirs is being taken from them. It has nothing to do with the reality of changing demographics or unhappiness with Trump's policies. It's obviously due to cheating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19528

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Lin Wood is bringing fire. It doesn’t matter if you’re 1-57 as long as you win this last one.  Check, PayPal, and BitCoin accepted, not tax deductible.  Stop the steal, Patriots Unite. 
 

AF3941-B0-C7-E1-4257-B883-267-D6-CA9792-

California went for Trump, I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87186

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Well, if you took away every major city in California, California would be red. And you have to because obviously, every major city has fraud that aids the Democrats and not, oh, sheer volumes of Democratic voters. This post election denial is a perfect microcosm for the Trump voter. They think what's rightfully theirs is being taken from them. It has nothing to do with the reality of changing demographics or unhappiness with Trump's policies. It's obviously due to cheating. 

There are no blue states, only blue cities. Number of counties! Total land mass!!!!

  • Hook 'Em 2
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...