What's new
By:
Filters

This may actually matter. TX files suit in SCOTUS

the conservative atheist said:
Probably true. All we're going to get is the same old swamp status quo. Everyone knows the election was a turd and a sham, but nobody wants to shoulder the responsibility of fixing it, if they even care at all.
Click to expand...

This is my thought exactly.

While I appreciate not having to type it out myself, it doesn't make me any less sick to my stomach.
 
Grendel said:
Alan's wrong.

Florida was sued for changing their voting requirements without due process and cost Al Gore his election.

There is already precedence for throwing out unlawful voting changes. There is also precedence for other states to be affected under the 14th Amendment. They also have struck down Safe Harbor before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...


Exactly.
 
Void_of_Light said:
Louisiana filed their own lawsuit and is joining Texas in ours. Rumor is several more states will join also.
Click to expand...

photo36044.jpg
 
Grendel said:
Alan's wrong. Florida was sued for changing their voting requirements without due process and cost Al Gore his election.

There is already precedence for throwing out unlawful voting changes. There is also precedence for other states to be affected under the 14th Amendment. They also have struck down Safe Harbor before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Click to expand...

His opinion is about Texas suing other states...Is this the same as the Gore/ Bush Florida situation?
 
Truckedup said:
His opinion is about Texas suing other states...Is this the same as the Gore/ Bush Florida situation?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Bush vs Gore was campaign vs campaign over a US state (FL). This case is TX vs a couple of bitch states for violating their own laws and Constitution thereby affecting TX.
 
I also don't think TX gives a single hoot about an 1868 case that says they can't do what they want. I'll remind those that don't recall there are 3 power grids in the US: East, West and TX. If any state was poised to say eff off it's TX. Not that I expect it to happen, but they're the best prepared as far as I can tell.
 
Pony_Driver said:
I also don't think TX gives a single hoot about an 1868 case that says they can't do what they want. I'll remind those that don't recall there are 3 power grids in the US: East, West and TX. If any state was poised to say eff off it's TX. Not that I expect it to happen, but they're the best prepared as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

For sure, they have their own sea ports. oil, mines...
 
Pony_Driver said:
No, it's not.

Bush vs Gore was campaign vs campaign over a US state (FL). This case is TX vs a couple of bitch states for violating their own laws and Constitution thereby affecting TX.
Click to expand...

The legal action, Bush vs Gore, was not the same.

The outcome is what Texas and 7 other states are asking for: The Supreme Court took the case and found that FL could not change it's election laws (like PA) the way they did and therefore the votes they counted after unlawfully extending their election (they took votes three days after deadline) must not count.
 
Weasel said:
as I understand it, just that it's sitting in their inbox. Not action taken on it yet.
Click to expand...

If we're smart, we tie it all to Florida, 2000 and they have to take it up, since they ruled on it previously.

There is a very HIGH threshold that must be met in order for them to take a 180 on that SCOTUS ruling. We don't have those sorts of folks on the bench, either.

Our new Justice installed is a very 20/20 move these days...
 
Grendel said:
If we're smart, we tie it all to Florida, 2000 and they have to take it up, since they ruled on it previously.

There is a very HIGH threshold that must be met in order for them to take a 180 on that SCOTUS ruling. We don't have those sorts of folks on the bench, either.

Our new Justice installed is a very 20/20 move these days...
Click to expand...

I would hope they would have been smart enough to do that.
 
The thing about this, it's really slick. It gives them a "Oh, my bad" out, sort of like the hanging chads in 2000. It's just a legal wrangle that eliminates all the crap, but keeps the election whole.

I think both sides have realized that people are really pissed and disenfranchisement is a real issue for us.

So, with this, the Dems can claim ignorance of this and slide a bunch of things under the rug.

I hope that everything bears immense inspection. We have to keep that pressure up.

if you want to read:

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

BTW, note it's the TX Attorney General, not the Solicitor General.

Thus the People of TX, not the Government of Tx.
 
CDA 455 II said:
Do we have any lawyers here (IRATE4X4)?



I remember the old place had just about every occupation represented at one point.
Click to expand...

I am not an attorney, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night...

Actually, I deal with a lot of contracts and can follow along.

The Texas case is a master genius level move.

State to State means that it's Supreme Court, only. Leveraging precedence with the current people on the bench, astounding. Giving them an out, political expedience.
 
Scalia wrote most of the Bush Vs Gore findings... who was his law clerk then?

Who else did Biden piss off and is now a Justice?
 
Supremes will punt again. They will not take on anything that could result in one state invalidating another's electoral votes. Even if they find clear evidence that every single vote was faked in GA, they will not invalidate or override their electors.
 
realsquash said:
Supremes will punt again. They will not take on anything that could result in one state invalidating another's electoral votes. Even if they find clear evidence that every single vote was faked in GA, they will not invalidate or override their electors.
Click to expand...

Who was Scalia's law clerk back in 2000?

While you're at it, check out Biden vs Kavanaugh, too.

There's a reason there is considerable Constitutional merit to this case and it's aimed at the new members of the bench... that have had run-ins with Biden.
 
Grendel said:
Who was Scalia's law clerk back in 2000?

While you're at it, check out Biden vs Kavanaugh, too.

There's a reason there is considerable Constitutional merit to this case and it's aimed at the new members of the bench... that have had run-ins with Biden.
Click to expand...

You assume they are going to be political?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh