Forum menu
So is today the day SCOTUS shows whether trump appointees are puppets or serious judges?
Up until this point in election history Conservative leaning judges have always believed in non-intervention in elections.
State voting policy has always been a State matter, not federal. The idea of overturning a PA State law passed by both houses of PA government (both Republican btw!) goes completely against everything ever legislated/opined by the SCOTUS before.
So... Texas have gone to SCOTUS because Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the constitution in their election process.
This seems to be the one to watch (the outcome rather than the case, as their is no case to prove as such as it's a simple statement of fact).
As I understand it the case has absolutely no chance. They only brought it forward because they didn't want to be accused of "letting the clock run out" by waiting till after the "Safe Harbor" deadline.
This way the case gets heard and dismissed correctly.
Graham S - legally I agree completely. Which is why anything but a complete rebuttal shows that they are Trump puppets rather than guardians of the constitution.
5thE - do you have a link to that story anywhere?
I expect a frenzy of this sort of thing for the next few weeks.
https://twitter.com/thor_benson/status/1336108517346963456
Dar Leaf reminds me of someone. I wonder if he's a terrible C*** as well.
dantsw13 - link to Texas lawsuit...
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529209-texas-sues-biden-states-in-supreme-court-seeking-to-delay-electoral
If the SC decline to hear the case that must be it for trump - definitively.
Thanks Frank - found it now. It’s completely nuts , but then again so is all of this!
Now Giuliani has given Ellis CV too, and she was maskless(like all the guests 🤯 ) at The WH Xmas party.
The response to SCOTUS from the PA briefs is pretty good reading. Any response other than a complete DENIED WITH PREJUDICE will be a constitutional and judicial disgrace.
Got a link?
It’s interesting how the Texas thing actually seems like a legal way that Trump can take the case to SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS were, for example, packed with partisan hacks then in theory they could overturn the election.
I don’t think they will, but it’s alarming how Trump is showing all the chinks in the hallowed “checks and balances.”
Pook:
Superficial - the one thing you need in US litigation is “standing”. Because Texas have no loss in PA, MI, AZ, GA, NV, then they have no right to bring the case. It’s just grandstanding.
Imagine the scene in the WH.
trump on the hotline to hannity at Fox; voodoo dolls of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett on the table with trump ramming needles into them.
That looks like the final nail in the coffin; I'm a bit sad in one sense as a source of entertainment is now being closed off.
"I OWN THEM!!! WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE!! RUDY? RUDY?????"
That looks like the final nail in the coffin; I’m a bit sad in one sense as a source of entertainment is now being closed off.
Agreed, but I expect with that clown and his clown family it's just a (significant) chapter closing. Hoping the next one involves mugshots, 'perp walks' and orange jumpsuits.
That looks like the final nail in the coffin
Quite a high ratio of nails to coffin.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336473729430401029
https://twitter.com/IBrokenBricksI/status/1336474425856765953
That's a clear example of...10/10 for persistence and 11/10 for stupidity.
How long before the SC declines to hear the 'case' brought by ken paxton, Texas AG.
Interesting to note that...
Paxton has been under indictment since 2015 on securities fraud charges relating to activities prior to taking office; he has pleaded not guilty.[3][4] In October 2020, several high-level assistants in Paxton's office made allegations about him of "bribery, abuse of office and other crimes"
With that background, why is he AG?
Because it’s Texas & they’d vote for anybody with a red rosette.
Arizona used to be like that. Then Trump called John McCain a loser.
https://twitter.com/FlyingMezerkis/status/1336459244867121153
Paxton has been under indictment since 2015...
I suspect that's why he is doing Trump's bidding. He's after one of those nice presidential pardons.
from todays grauniad cryptic crossword
...here with old Pence and poor Melania, essentially not accepting what's happened (2,6)
😀
Got that one.
Been a while since I did the grauniad cryptic - is “poor Melania” the letters of Melania without the first and last?
"That Mike Kelly Pennsylvania case? Never heard of it. Nothing to do with me guv."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336666810742149120
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336686867656355850
"But the Texas case, oh yes, that's the Big One..."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1336668083822473221
WTF does intervening mean in this context? How does a president legally "intervene" with the decision making of the Supreme Court?
I do not think that he can legally intervene. Isn't there something about judiciary and executive separation?
I guess they've been saving up all the evidence they didn't use in the other forty cases.,..
He cannot intervene due to separation of powers; executive - judiciary - legislature.
trump must be referring to the ken paxton case as the SC declined to hear the first Texas case.
As they declined the first case it's almost certain that will do the same to paxton.
As at 4.15pm the scorecard shows team trump losing 51 - 1 in post election litigation.
losing biggly
Oh God, that line in his first tweet 'how can you have a presidency when the vast majority think the election was rigged'
I mean, where to start with that statement?
trump must be referring to the ken paxton case as the SC declined to hear the first Texas case.
As they declined the first case it’s almost certain that will do the same to paxton.
Right wing media, FB etc are all staying it's been accepted by the SC. Don't think it has. They've asked the states to respond, but they did that with the other case and then rejected it.
WTF does intervening mean in this context? How does a president legally “intervene” with the decision making of the Supreme Court?
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1336855695266820099?s=19
https://twitter.com/svdate/status/1336855126850596865?s=19
So that’s all states certified and the electors due to meet Monday?
WTF does intervening mean in this context?
I think he means he's going to whine and moan on Twitter after the courts toss out lawsuit after lawsuit so that fools keep sending him money.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1336894212948766722
This is quite fun. Press Secretary was on TV yesterday claiming one in quadrillion chance of Bidden win in those states was fact.
https://twitter.com/usbtypewriter/status/1336449089920184323?s=19
These legal efforts must be costing trump a fortune - we know he won't be paying for it, himself tho
So Who is paying for all this madness?
These legal efforts must be costing trump a fortune – we know he won’t be paying for it, himself tho
So Who is paying for all this madness?
He's raised over $200 million from suckers to fund the lawsuits. If you read the fine print, the money doesn't have to be used for lawsuits, most of it is going into a 2024 campaign slush fund.
But I thought the campaign was already in debt ($400M?)