The PA case has been brewing for weeks, if not on the minds of the justices for months. I'd expect a ruling this week.
TX case being explosive would take time to argue. But if PA goes down, TX goes down foregone.
Printable View
The PA case has been brewing for weeks, if not on the minds of the justices for months. I'd expect a ruling this week.
TX case being explosive would take time to argue. But if PA goes down, TX goes down foregone.
..
Packing of the SC?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by caverdan
Dude, do you have the slightest idea of how our Constitution works? Because you obviously don't understand what court packing is.
What Trump and McConnell have don't is the exact opposite of court packing.
..
So because 3 justices passed away while he was president, and he did his constitutionally mandated duty of replacing them, he packed the courts? ok. Curious if Hillary was president and did the same thing, you'd call it court packing.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverdan
..
Fair enough. I disagree, but that's ok.
Imagine a situation where, let's just say, the results of an election were in question and we had a court that couldn't decide what to do about it because there was an even number of justices and they were at a stalemate as to what their decision would be. Seems like a tie breaker would be useful, but I could be wrong.
..
As I already mentioned, you obviously don't understand our Constitution and how our Republic works... the President was doing his job exactly as required by the Constitution. Get back to me after you finish 8th grade Civics.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverdan
And just for the record and to help you get started... a President only nominates a SC candidate. It's congress that appoints them.
It appears you also need to work on your history as Obama did not wait. He nominated Merit Garland for the SC. Just as he was Constitutionally required to do. It was congress that did not confirm Garland, as is their prerogative under the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverdan
At least work on your basic Civics before beginning this crap in here. Obama tried every trick in the book to get Garland confirmed, but in the end the SC judge is not the presidents call.
"Packing" means something specific. The left are masters at changing and using language to lie. Don't contribute to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverdan
Expanding the court from 9 to 11+ is packing. Appointing as they come along isn't.
Sad thing is, the Dems may very well get 2 flips and 3 total if Biden gets in. Thomas and Alito could pass any moment. And Breyer could pass, or retire. The timing of death doesn't dictate calling it packing.
If the vote is questioned or deemed fraudulent the election goes to The House with each state getting ONE vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by caverdan
If this happens Trump would likely win as Republican states out number Democratic states. This has actually happened twice in our history, 1801 and 1825.
^^^THIS^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by dougrz
You have to give Kennedy a lot of props for retiring and allowing Trump to nominate his replacement.
To bad RBG didn't do the same thing when the left begged her to near the end of Obama's rein. The left has no one but RBG to blame for the current make-up of the SC.
Scenes from the Georgia trail.
The good, the bad, and the unsightly.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...73403cd808.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...9411fb9f5a.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b71caa5683.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d0e43e9611.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...5674c9ff3e.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...41703da764.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b5724c7794.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...edfcbb0666.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...aa90ea8fbc.jpg
Had an invite to the White House last week.
Entering here.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...382d2c07eb.jpg
Still can't believe you passed the SS BC:haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by dougrz
How did he 'pack' the court. He appointed justices by law the same way it was designed to. Unless he is behind the deaths of the justices there isn't a way to call it 'packing'
Heres some precedent if anyone follows such.
Elections Undecided by Midnight are Void & Preempted by Federal Law – Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Decision)
3 U.S.C. § 2 kicks the decision back to the State Legislatures after a failed election renders the previous results void. Failed elections nullify all votes, not just some votes, not just late votes, not just illegal votes. The election itself is void in late States.
Which States are late? The answer will be a question of first impression for the Supreme Court. But the only fair answer is obvious. If, at midnight, one candidate had enough of a lead, so that there was no mathematical possibility whatsoever of their being caught – after a review of the votes already counted, and the votes remaining – then the final selection has been made on time. But if the outcome was uncertain at Midnight, the State violated the deadline, and its election is void.
This hard mathematical rule will motivate States to develop better comprehensive procedures, and to commit sufficient monetary resources to safeguard our elections from despair going forward. Perfect elections are possible, and developing them is a fundamental purpose of paying taxes. We are a wealthy nation. Get it right.
As to Representative and Senate races, the statutes mandate subsequent elections, but as to presidential electors, 3 U.S.C. § 2 provides a deadline extension to the State Legislatures alone to determine – “in such manner as the legislature of such State may direct” – which electors shall be appointed. This statute simply reiterates the plenary authority in the United States Constitution.
We should find out soon what the State Legislatures will do, because the United States Supreme Court is about to nullify the results of this election in every State that failed to report a clear winner before November 4th.
[W]e have a Supreme Court decision which we must follow, explaining that the word ‘election’ means a ‘consummation’ of the process of selecting an official…The Foster definition of ‘election’ implies that there is only a single Election Day in Oregon, when the election is ‘consummated,’ even though there are prior voting days.”
The 9th Circuit interprets Foster v. Love as mandating that the word “election” means a final selection of an official on Election Day.
WHAT ABOUT BUSH V. GORE?
At this point, you may be wondering, if my analysis above is correct, why the election in Bush v. Gore wasn’t void? It’s a very good question. That nightmare dragged on for 37 days, finally settled by a nebulous opinion, just as the Florida Legislature was getting ready to use the nuclear option to seat Bush electors via bicameral resolution. Incredibly, the answer to this very relevant question is shockingly simple:
That election wasn’t void because nobody asked the court to void it.
CONCLUSION
Consider all of the above in light of the results of the 2020 presidential elections; in Pennsylvania today, two weeks after Election Day, 8000 votes suddenly appeared, and the initial count is still not complete; Arizona has tens of thousands of ballots left to count in the initial canvass; Georgia discovered over 2600 missing votes yesterday, and the entire State is conducting a recount; Wisconsin just announced the details and costs of a forthcoming recount; Michigan is buried in litigation supported by many sworn affidavits alleging irregularities. None of these states consummated their elections on November 3rd. The elections have failed, as a matter of law. The results should be voided.
https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11...-9-0-decision/
Republicans Block Inaugural Committee Recognizing Biden as President
“Today, at a meeting of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), Republicans voted to reject a motion offered by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) that the committee affirm that it is preparing for the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in coordination with the Biden Presidential Inaugural Committee,” read a statement from Rep. Steny H. Hoyer.
“Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) were joined by House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) in blocking the motion, effectively preventing JCCIC from publicly accepting that the upcoming inauguration will be for President-elect Biden,” continued the statement.
https://trishintel.com/republicans-b...-as-president/
The SC has agreed to hear the TX case. Whole ballgame in that one case.
This is Bush v Gore in magnitude. One ruling can change it all.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...cc1fccc78e.jpg
Gotta love Texas. When I lived there I swear they considered the state of Texas as the United States of America. The others states were mere appendages. :haha:
I wouldn't be surprised to see leftist street protests early. For 2 reasons.
1. Their minions have no idea court cases and legit issues exist. They simply believe and have believed it's over. The shock factor will be big.
2. They believe in violence and recognize, correctly, that it works.
I disagree with the last point. The Sup. Court taking the case doesn't suggest that 5 justices are prepared to rule in any direction, for or against the plaintiff.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougrz
Agreed. It means "willing to listen, brief met a threshold of plausibility worthy of not being dismissed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Card
But consider the political reality of what they did. The courage to even put themselves on the line for now having to rule is enormous.
No personal confirmation on this, yet.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFile...ng-1721249.JPG
Here's what y'all need to ask yourselves regarding Trump's plan. Do you think he just planned to "do his best and hope everybody follows the law, and that nobody's corrupt"?
Or do you think they knew who was corrupt in each of these swing states, and how to bypass them, and also expose the corruption in the meantime?
It's the latter. They did not just hope to do a good job campaigning. It was a specific plan, and it continues to be executed daily.
Yo Beech... the Texas case has nothing to do with fraud or corruption... it is based on the fact that the states themselves didn't follow their state constitutions in regards to voting procedures... at least that's my understanding...
Both state and US constitutions. The US says legislatures determine the method of choosing. State constitutions can add to that. But that mere threshold alone invalidates every governor's order (PA), every Sec State order (GA), every court order (WI and PA), etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
If the US Const is to be read textually. Do we have the 5 textualist bloc in place? Robert's not. Alito, Thomas, ACB prob yes. Kav and Gorsuch I'm not sure we know yet.
Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan don't give a damn about the words of any Const, as we all know.
Another point here is, the SC agreed to hear in the Texas case a broader argument than what was at stake in the PA case. Broader both in terms of legal issues and relevance to the outcome.
Alito declined to issue an injunction in the PA case, but he didn't dismiss it. Does that indicate how he leans in the Texas case? Or does it indicate a merge? Or does it indicate an injunction isn't needed since it'll be settled soon enough anyway?
The media, including Fox, is headlining a loss in the PA case. Not accurate. One article even said, "The SC ruled against the Trump team and there were no dissents." Count the errors. 1, wasn't a Trump suit. 2, SC didn't rule, Alito did. 3, case wasn't decided, issue of injunction was. 4, there are no dissents issued when a circuit presiding judge rules on injunctions.
Every single red state should join Texas in this.
We either have a Constitutional Republic or a communist society.
We figure that out here....
Hmmm, yummy. I like it. Everybody knew right after the "election" that it would eventually end up in the lap of the SC...and now here we are. Maybe that's why everyone has been so chill about it...nothing to do but wait until the moment comes. As I've said, even my liberal clients know it was all bullshit.
If Trump pulls it off the media will have to eat the biggest dookie sammie in history. Oh God, that would be glorious!
Well, no, it turns out. The case has been docketed. Put on the calendar and noted. States have been given until Thurs 3 PM to respond. After that the SC decides whether to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dougrz
Damn it. Almost there, but not quite.
Civil War II
Trump comes out ahead any way you dice it. Even if the SC rules against Texas' suit and Biden is #46 his inauguration will be shrouded in fraud and corruption.
Yeah...I was thinking about that today. What kind of a crowd do you think he'd have at the mall? I wouldn't be surprise if it turned into a melee with Trumpers crashing the party. Ole Biden I reckon would take this whole thing with ashes in his mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Hey Doug...right on with that trip to the White House! Throw down a pic with Trump himself and that'll really be impressive. A few weeks ago I was going to attempt coming out there with you but I ended up with too much on my plate for that to happen. I'm glad you're having a good time and I'm digging your analysis of the legal stuff...diggin' the attitude as well.
Now if things fall into place, wouldn't that be sweet?
I've been saying this exact same thing to anyone that would listen since November 4th.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Turnabout is fair play.
And what form will it take?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
This was a very disappointing turn of events. Initial word for several hours was they "agreed to hear." Then word became "on the docket."Quote:
Originally Posted by dougrz
Given Alito's denying the injunction against PA, you'd have to say the odds are against the Texas case being even heard.
The left is pushing the narrative that Texas has no standing to sue, and that might hold sway here. When you consider leftist courts said people couldn't sue before the election because no injury had occured, and couldn't sue after because it was too late, and states can't sue to enforce the Constitution, it all adds up to no serious enforcement mechanism for Constitutional issues about voting.
And that's just to get heard. Never mind the text says legislatures set election rules and we had Sec States and governors and courts doing so instead. Death of the parchment in this area, it seems, if plain words can't be enforced.