2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[seacoaster]

From Court-watcher Amy Howe:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/stat ... -election/

"Four states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – urged the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon to reject Texas’ efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Using strong language rarely seen in Supreme Court filings, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices that they should “not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”

The filings came in the lawsuit that Texas is seeking to file directly in the Supreme Court, a process known as original jurisdiction, attempting to delay the Electoral College vote and prevent the four states from casting their Electoral College votes for President-elect Joe Biden. The briefs filed on Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contend that the 2020 election “suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in those four states,” making it impossible to know who “legitimately won the 2020 election.”

Numerous lower courts and election authorities in the states at issue have found no evidence of fraud, illegality or any other election problems that would cast doubt on the results.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked the justices for permission to join the Texas lawsuit, arguing that “nearly half of the country believes the election was stolen.” And on Thursday morning, six more states – Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina and Utah – requested approval to join, telling the court that they “share” the concerns voiced by Trump and Texas “about the unconstitutional administration of the Presidential election in the Defendant States, and its impact on voters in” their own states.

Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin filed four separate briefs, but common themes emerged among all four. First, the states stressed, Texas’ lawsuit does not fall within the narrow category of cases in which the Supreme Court should exercise its original jurisdiction. Among other things, the states noted, there is another forum to resolve these disputes, as evidenced by the fact that courts around the country have repeatedly considered and rejected similar claims about the 2020 election. And if the Supreme Court were to exercise its original jurisdiction here, the states warned, its docket would be flooded with election-law disputes every four years in perpetuity.

Second, the states told the justices, Texas’ lawsuit is not a viable case because (again, among other things) Texas does not have a legal right to sue, known as standing, because it cannot show that it has been injured. Georgia pushed back against the argument that Texas has standing because it has an interest in the election of the vice president, who casts the deciding vote in the Senate: Texas doesn’t have a special interest in the vice president’s vote, Georgia observed, but in any event its “speculation that the Vice President may one day cast a tie-breaking vote” is not enough to support a lawsuit. Indeed, Georgia notes, during his eight years as vice president, President-elect Joe Biden never cast a tie-breaking vote.

The four states were represented by their attorneys general and other state officials, but Georgia was also represented by several private lawyers, including a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and Joseph Hunt, who served as the assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice during the Trump administration.

Texas is likely to file a brief responding to the four states’ filings. There is no timetable for the justices to rule on Texas’ request, although they will probably act quickly."

[seacoaster]

Texas’s Reply:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

[Bart]

Texas’s Reply:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

What’s your take on the reply?

[seacoaster]

Texas’s Reply:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

What’s your take on the reply?

Tepid and wrong on the law. It doesn't even meaningfully address the question of why the Court should exercise original jurisdiction.

[Bart]

Texas’s Reply:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

What’s your take on the reply?

Tepid and wrong on the law. It doesn't even meaningfully address the question of why the Court should exercise original jurisdiction.

Thanks. I don’t understand the law but I thought the rebuttal to the statistics used was awkward at best.

[seacoaster]

Check out the title to this submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and let me know if you see something weird. Thanks.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

[FannOLax]

Check out the title to this submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and let me know if you see something weird. Thanks.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

Ummmm, well "New California State" and "New Nevada State:" looks like somebody other than the actual state of California is claiming to represent that entire state of California, and ditto for Nevada. "Formation of New California State" is claimed, but geez, kinda odd that we hadn't heard about it before this. Very bizarre, but also loads of fun for our next party games: maybe Seacoaster could claim to be the "New Texas State" and give its electoral votes to Biden.

[smoova]

Check out the title to this submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and let me know if you see something weird. Thanks.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

Address of the Attorney for Amici is a UPS Store in Pahrump, Nevada.

[seacoaster]

Check out the title to this submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and let me know if you see something weird. Thanks.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

Ummmm, well "New California State" and "New Nevada State:" looks like somebody other than the actual state of California is claiming to represent that entire state of California, and ditto for Nevada. "Formation of New California State" is claimed, but geez, kinda odd that we hadn't heard about it before this. Very bizarre, but also loads of fun for our next party games: maybe Seacoaster could claim to be the "New Texas State" and give its electoral votes to Biden.

Hah! The crazies are out. I did not know that counsel's office was in a UPS store.

The informed punditocracy (not me!) is thinking the Court will deal with this later today or tomorrow.

[cradleandshoot]

Check out the title to this submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and let me know if you see something weird. Thanks.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

Ummmm, well "New California State" and "New Nevada State:" looks like somebody other than the actual state of California is claiming to represent that entire state of California, and ditto for Nevada. "Formation of New California State" is claimed, but geez, kinda odd that we hadn't heard about it before this. Very bizarre, but also loads of fun for our next party games: maybe Seacoaster could claim to be the "New Texas State" and give its electoral votes to Biden.

Hah! The crazies are out. I did not know that counsel's office was in a UPS store.

The informed punditocracy (not me!) is thinking the Court will deal with this later today or tomorrow.

Now do you live in New Pennsylvania?

[calourie]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tweet-t ... 10695.html

Anyone in here think Trump will ever concede in a meaningful way beyond actually physically moving out of the White House? How many people in here think he will have to be physically removed inauguration day? My guess is he will make an effort to avoid that spectacle, but as we all should know by now Trump seems to almost delight in using the crushing of norms to stir up his base At least Washington's gun laws preclude the idea of a bunch of armed Ever Trumpers milling about outside the White House anticipating that event. Or perhaps Trump will have his Darth Vader moment and come back from the dark side while falling into Sleepy Joe's arms. Or perhaps in a stunning move the Supreme Court will proceed with a 5-4 decision to declare Trump POTUS for life.

[seacoaster]

Check out the title to this submission to the Supreme Court of the United States and let me know if you see something weird. Thanks.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... -12-11.pdf

Ummmm, well "New California State" and "New Nevada State:" looks like somebody other than the actual state of California is claiming to represent that entire state of California, and ditto for Nevada. "Formation of New California State" is claimed, but geez, kinda odd that we hadn't heard about it before this. Very bizarre, but also loads of fun for our next party games: maybe Seacoaster could claim to be the "New Texas State" and give its electoral votes to Biden.

Hah! The crazies are out. I did not know that counsel's office was in a UPS store.

The informed punditocracy (not me!) is thinking the Court will deal with this later today or tomorrow.

Now do you live in New Pennsylvania?

I live in New Hampshire, which is old.

[seacoaster]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tweet-t ... 10695.html

Anyone in here think Trump will ever concede in a meaningful way beyond actually physically moving out of the White House?

How many people in here think he will have to be physically removed inauguration day?

My guess is he will make an effort to avoid that spectacle, but as we all should know by now Trump seems to almost delight in using the crushing of norms to stir up his base At least Washington's gun laws preclude the idea of a bunch of armed Ever Trumpers milling about outside the White House anticipating that event. Or perhaps Trump will have his Darth Vader moment and come back from the dark side while falling into Sleepy Joe's arms. Or perhaps in a stunning move the Supreme Court will proceed with a 5-4 decision to declare Trump POTUS for life.

No. He won't concede. He is in too deep with his fabrications to his Dumb Base.

I don't think he will have to be physically removed. I would like him to be removed by US Marshals, but understand I can't always have my way. I think he'll go to Mar-A-Lagostan and hold some kind of deplorable counter-rally.

My hope is that he dies from a health complication of some sort within the first year of Biden taking the Presidency. That way, we can have the Anti-Democratic lunatics -- several of them here -- suggest the "real possibility" that the Deep State or Hunter or Peter Strozk or his paramour poisoned the Duce.

If the Supreme Court installs him, it's retirement outside the US for me.

[FannOLax]

...

Now do you live in New Pennsylvania?

You don't have to live in Pennsylvania to file a brief on behalf of New Pennsylvania: living in an apartment above the UPS store in Cheat Lake, West Virginia affording a view across the border into "New Pennsylvania" (sorta like Sarah Palin could see Russia from Alaska) allows one to claim to represent both New West Virginia and New Pennsylvania.

[CU77]

Or perhaps in a stunning move the Supreme Court will proceed with a 5-4 decision to declare Trump POTUS for life.

That's completely absurd!

The vote will be 6-3.

[seacoaster]

Order:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_p860.pdf

Finis.

[Bart]

Order:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_p860.pdf

Finis.

So Alito and Thomas would have heard the case but then not grant them the decision? Is that correct?

None of the recent appointees sided with the president who appointed them. If what you said about the weakness of the case is true, and to my layman lens it seems so, they followed the rule of law.

[seacoaster]

Order:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_p860.pdf

Finis.

So Alito and Thomas would have heard the case but then not grant them the decision? Is that correct?

None of the recent appointees sided with the president who appointed them. If what you said about the weakness of the case is true, and to my layman lens it seems so, they followed the rule of law.

Yes, that is my read of the order. And yes, the Court applied settled principles of law.

[njbill]

Interesting little twist from the activist conservative twins.
Yes, those two would have agreed to hear the case, but they said they would not have granted any of the injunctive relief Texas sought. Since the electoral college will meet on Monday, Congress will count the votes on January 6, and Biden will be sworn in on January 20, unless the court had heard and decided the case on a lightning quick schedule, it would not have issued a decision before Biden was president so Texas wasn’t going to win the case anyway.


Can’t say I’m a real expert on the issue, but I thought I recalled from law school that the Supreme Court had mandatory jurisdiction over actions between two states, not discretionary. I guess something must’ve changed in the last 40 years.

In any event, the three T**** appointees did the right thing. Good.

[Bart]

Interesting little twist from the activist conservative twins.
Yes, those two would have agreed to hear the case, but they said they would not have granted any of the injunctive relief Texas sought. Since the electoral college will meet on Monday, Congress will count the votes on January 6, and Biden will be sworn in on January 20, unless the court had heard and decided the case on a lightning quick schedule, it would not have issued a decision before Biden was president so Texas wasn’t going to win the case anyway.


Can’t say I’m a real expert on the issue, but I thought I recalled from law school that the Supreme Court had mandatory jurisdiction over actions between two states, not discretionary. I guess something must’ve changed in the last 40 years.

In any event, the three T**** appointees did the right thing. Good.

Thanks