Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

There is a very, very, very, very small part of me that wants Donald to stay, because I think, without him, the likes of BLM will get free rein.

[B52]

Or when things are generally more moderate and less polarised, BLM might attract less focus.

Meanwhile, it doesn't look like SCOTUS wants to play.

[Nick W]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Good job Texas

No spurious arguments about fraud, just a simple question of unconstitutional procedure.

Initial response by 15:00 GMT today.

Yes, a Senate changing the voting rules to encourage people to vote by mail during a pandemic is a disgrace.

[Entwood]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55243008

First step fails ....

but the saga still continues, even though law experts deride it....:

This is not the end of legal challenges to Mr Biden's victory. Republicans in the state of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court on Tuesday accusing four other states of election irregularities - a challenge legal experts have sharply criticised.

Plaintiffs want the court to stop the use of "unlawful election results without review and ratification by the defendant states' legislatures".

What legal challenges remain for Trump?
'In his mind, he will not have lost'
One law professor at the University of Texas tweeted that this was "a new leader in the 'craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election' category", while another law professor at the University of California dismissed it as a "press release masquerading as a lawsuit" in a blog post.


https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336312379408322560

[Doctor Gollum]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Good job Texas

No spurious arguments about fraud, just a simple question of unconstitutional procedure.

Initial response by 15:00 GMT today.

Yes, a Senate changing the voting rules to encourage people to vote by mail during a pandemic is a disgrace.

They actually started the process last year in Pennsylvania, and the issue isn't as much what they did as how they did went about it... Basically someone made an arbitrary decision without any regards for the rules. Batflu doesn't over rule legislative process, regardless of the motivation or intent behind the decision.

And as the Presidential race dictates the Vice President one, such behaviour affects ALL the States as the VP gets the deciding vote in the Senate.

[STEMO]

We all know he's a child in a mans (obese) body, but his followers are like fanatical followers of some bizarre cult. It's the beginning of a very painful downward spiral for the US......China is watching....and waiting.
Can you imagine this certifiable moron with his finger on the nuclear button if things got tough?

[Nick W]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Good job Texas

No spurious arguments about fraud, just a simple question of unconstitutional procedure.

Initial response by 15:00 GMT today.

Yes, a Senate changing the voting rules to encourage people to vote by mail during a pandemic is a disgrace.

They actually started the process last year in Pennsylvania, and the issue isn't as much what they did as how they did went about it... Basically someone made an arbitrary decision without any regards for the rules. Batflu doesn't over rule legislative process, regardless of the motivation or intent behind the decision.

And as the Presidential race dictates the Vice President one, such behaviour affects ALL the States as the VP gets the deciding vote in the Senate.

Then, as I've written previously, the complaint/it's not fair whining/lawsuit should have been done before an election was held.


No not should, but MUST.

[Doctor Gollum]

Perhaps, but it is a valid complaint nonetheless as even if the decision ends up being to split the 62 contested College votes 50/50 Biden still wins... But at least it would be constitutionally correct.

If they decide to reject the case, then that's effectively the end of the constitution, so that's unlikely to happen.

[Entwood]

Perhaps, but it is a valid complaint nonetheless as even if the decision ends up being to split the 62 contested College votes 50/50 Biden still wins... But at least it would be constitutionally correct.

If they decide to reject the case, then that's effectively the end of the constitution, so that's unlikely to happen.

Now I know you consider yourself the expert on the USA and Trump in particular ..but even for you thats one hell of an assumption !  Perhaps it might actually be an idea to let the Supreme Court decide what is "constitutional" .. rather than you

I just love the way you prejudge everything to be in your favour .. must be dissapointing when the real world steps in ......

[Doctor Gollum]

My statement may have been slighty melodramatic, but if four States can overrule/ignore the constitution, and are then allowed to do so without repercussion, it effectively renders the constitution powerless.

As for the Pennsylvania SCOTUS case, they haven't thrown it out as is being reported, they have merely denied the emergency injunctive reliefso that case is still pending.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Cut n Pasted from elsewhere and I'm not sure how valid this is, but it's interesting nonetheless.   

As one election law expert put it, the US constitution is effectively a contract between the 50 states, including how their president is elected, and Texas is claiming other parties broke parts of that contract. Texas is apparently now supported by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Talk about a divided country. Perhaps not a surprise, the Supreme Court took the Texas case in expedited fashion, and has called for a response by 3PM Thursday.

Yes, it *is* a huge can of worms it is opening if it acts. Yet it is also a can of worms if it doesn’t act when Texas and other states claim:

“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”

In short, this *might* be the most significant Supreme Court case since 2000, which notoriously decided the presidential election in Florida.

Of course, it does *not* mean the Court will rule for Texas – but them taking the case, rapidly, and calling for a response suggests they are taking it seriously. That is something the Twitterati were saying was inconceivable 24 hours ago. It could also explain why the Court denied emergency injunctive relief in Pennsylvania without dismissing the case: because the claim can be rolled into this larger one. We will soon get to hear what the Court has to say on the matter.


Popcorn time? 

[STEMO]

Cut n Pasted from elsewhere and I'm not sure how valid this is, but it's interesting nonetheless.   

As one election law expert put it, the US constitution is effectively a contract between the 50 states, including how their president is elected, and Texas is claiming other parties broke parts of that contract. Texas is apparently now supported by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Talk about a divided country. Perhaps not a surprise, the Supreme Court took the Texas case in expedited fashion, and has called for a response by 3PM Thursday.

Yes, it *is* a huge can of worms it is opening if it acts. Yet it is also a can of worms if it doesn’t act when Texas and other states claim:

“Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.”

In short, this *might* be the most significant Supreme Court case since 2000, which notoriously decided the presidential election in Florida.

Of course, it does *not* mean the Court will rule for Texas – but them taking the case, rapidly, and calling for a response suggests they are taking it seriously. That is something the Twitterati were saying was inconceivable 24 hours ago. It could also explain why the Court denied emergency injunctive relief in Pennsylvania without dismissing the case: because the claim can be rolled into this larger one. We will soon get to hear what the Court has to say on the matter.


Popcorn time? 

There's none left, Trump ate it all.

[B52]

Is this from MINA report - as in Macedonian International News Agency, Mark Abramoff? That's the only verbatim search result I'm finding.

Also, which 'election law expert'? They're normally only too keen to get their name out there.

[Doctor Gollum]

Breibart were the only 'formal' outlet who initially covered the filing at the Supreme Court.

[B52]

Breitbart... I'll maybe wait for some more objective outlets.

No offence DG.