2020

[Scott Card]

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.

[dougrz]

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.

[Scott Card]

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.

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.

[dougrz]

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.

Agreed. It means "willing to listen, brief met a threshold of plausibility worthy of not being dismissed."

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.

[oldno7]

No personal confirmation on this, yet.

[Sombeech]

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.

[Iceaxe]

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...

[dougrz]

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.

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.

[dougrz]

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.

[oldno7]

Every single red state should join Texas in this.

We either have a Constitutional Republic or a communist society.

We figure that out here....

[oldno7]

[oldno7]

[Byron]

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!

[dougrz]

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.

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.

Damn it. Almost there, but not quite.

[rockgremlin]

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.

[Byron]

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.

[Byron]

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?

[Iceaxe]

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.

I've been saying this exact same thing to anyone that would listen since November 4th.

Turnabout is fair play.

[dougrz]

I've been saying this exact same thing to anyone that would listen since November 4th.

Turnabout is fair play.

And what form will it take?

[dougrz]

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.

Damn it. Almost there, but not quite.

This was a very disappointing turn of events. Initial word for several hours was they "agreed to hear." Then word became "on the docket."

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.