Wow, very tolerant coming from a tolerant liberal. Let me ask you something, why do you retarded liberals always preach about love and unity and peace and tolerance, but the moment someone disagrees with you, you attack them and try to ruin their lives, and even wish them death, often times actually trying to kill them?
I’m going to paint you a little picture: democrats push for getting rid of all guns, so did the nazis. Democrat silence anyone they don’t agree with, nazis did the same thing. Democrats want the entire government to have complete control over everyone’s lives, so did the nazis. Liberals are obsessed with race, so were the nazis. The democrats use the media to push their agenda, guess what? So did the nazis. Face it, the democrats have more in common with the nazis than anyone else. And just an FYI, because you clearly have no clue what you’re actually talking about, retard haha, the US is NOT a democracy.
For now, pede. For now. Soon MAGA will come to your state, making it a great haven of freedom once more, and liberate all good pedes. You will just be a little closer to the Great Salt Mine of Philadelphia.
This is what I would like to know. I clicked the link for my state to join (it was a td link so I could read what to do), it errored out and when I clicked back, it was gone. Search doesn't seem to work either 😕
They "take the case" when they grant certioriari. This just means they want briefs submitted. After they grant cert they'll schedule oral hearings. They can still deny cert.
I think it's very difficult to deny cert in the Texas case. There's no question of standing. There's no question of circuit splits (because suits against States go straight to the Supreme Court). They really can only dismiss because if they claim all the claims in the Texas suit are baseless, and that would be really outrageous. So I think they'll take the case. But first, briefings.
Well trump retweeted it, and another pede pointed out that there is no question of standing. So likely this should still be celebrated as the start of a lawsuit.
I believe there is no need for certiorari since SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cross-state matters, but a legal 'pede will have to correct me if I'm wrong.
While SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over disputes between states, historically they sometimes do not accept these suits. For example, in 2016 Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado concerning marijuana legalization. The court voted 6-2 not to take the case, without explanation. Thomas and Alito dissented, saying the Court should have taken the case.
Docketing means nothing because to the best of my knowledge every case properly filed at the court receives a case docket number - many thousands of cases every year. Only a small fraction are ever heard. But this case has a much higher chance of actually being adjudicated because it invokes the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
This is correct. Being put on the docket just means the forms were correctly filled out and the filing fee was paid. The justices have not yet weighed in on it. It’s too early to make conclusions.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State is involved (Article III, Section 2, second paragraph). Suits against States where the plaintiff is a citizen of another State or country cannot be heard in Federal court (Amendment 11), but this is a suit by a State against another State.
Cert procedures are as usual though. The Court will ask for briefs, then it may grant or deny cert. Denying certiorari in this case would be outrageous. Texas has standing and an injury. There can be no circuit split because such cases always go to the SCOTUS directly, so appeals courts cannot be involved and so cannot disagree with each other. The only grounds for dismissing this case or denying cert. would be if all the claims are baseless, but that would be outrageous. So I expect they'll grant cert. I expect oral arguments.
The Court could schedule oral arguments after December 14, or even after December 19, but that would be outrageous as well. I expect they won't do that.
The Court could fail to rule before those deadlines, and that would be less outrageous because they could claim that they didn't have enough time, but then if they rule correctly the legislatures could still name their own Electors, then we'd have some States with two slates of Electoral College votes and a fight in Congress on January 6. However, if there's multiple Elector slates, Congress can pick which ones to accept using majority votes, so if we haven't taken back the House and kept the Senate, and even if we do (RINOs), we lose.
We can only force a contingent election (which Trump would win, RINOs and all) if no candidate reaches 270 EVs, and that can only happen if the Court rules before December 19.
We're nowhere near being out of the woods. The Insurrection Act option must still be on the table. Count your ammo, not your chickens.
No you guys, EVERY case gets docketed. It’s how a court keeps track of the cases. Being docketed doesn’t mean a hearing will happen. The key is to see if and when (1) the petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED and (2) the date on which oral argument is scheduled.
I’d imagine very soon, but they don’t have any rules or laws telling them when to schedule things. In normal times for normal cases, the answer would be “months”.
If you remove all the bullshit it's all about the constitution and following it. Let's hope SCOTUS are dedicated to the constitution and capable to ignore all these emotions flowing everywhere.
Not to pee on the parade, it really just means the received the paperwork and will look at it. It doesn't mean the will take the case and issue any orders.
SCOTUS will publicly announce if and when they take the case. Not some random guy on Twitter. And even if they do take the case, that does not guarantee standing. SCOTUS had taken cases before where, in their final decision, they decided the party bringing the suit did not have standing.
Tell that to SCOTUS. No, seriously. They decline these cases regularly (see, for example, the 2016 lawsuit Nebraska brought against Colorado). Maybe these new, constitutional justices will agree with Thomas that the court has to take these cases, but historically over the last century that has not been the case.
Is it too late for other states to join?
No. Now that it’s going to have a hearing, other states can either join, file a separate lawsuit, or file an adjunct complaint.
It’s just the beginning.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jay-sekulow-live-radio-show/id161198236?i=1000501749805
Sweet
This is The Pendulum beginning it's turn back the other way! MAGA PEDES!
Shills getting worried. We are on offense now boys, time to ramp up the memes.
If it’s over you have nothing to worry about
No lol. Reading comprehension still at 2nd grade level today?
Wow, very tolerant coming from a tolerant liberal. Let me ask you something, why do you retarded liberals always preach about love and unity and peace and tolerance, but the moment someone disagrees with you, you attack them and try to ruin their lives, and even wish them death, often times actually trying to kill them?
I’m going to paint you a little picture: democrats push for getting rid of all guns, so did the nazis. Democrat silence anyone they don’t agree with, nazis did the same thing. Democrats want the entire government to have complete control over everyone’s lives, so did the nazis. Liberals are obsessed with race, so were the nazis. The democrats use the media to push their agenda, guess what? So did the nazis. Face it, the democrats have more in common with the nazis than anyone else. And just an FYI, because you clearly have no clue what you’re actually talking about, retard haha, the US is NOT a democracy.
So what you're saying is, that you don't deserve respect? Got it!
Lol nice
👍🏻
Nipple hawd- nipple hawd
Someone said Nipples?
Oh shit. Governor party Nipples in da house!!
Louisiana has entered the chat
Where ya at, Alabama!
New York has not entered the chat, there is no credible evidence of debonkulation
Michigan has left the chat and quarantined all small businesses
Connecticut is busy cooking breakfast for our wife’s boyfriend.
Pennsylvania has ent—..... dammit my state sucks.
For now, pede. For now. Soon MAGA will come to your state, making it a great haven of freedom once more, and liberate all good pedes. You will just be a little closer to the Great Salt Mine of Philadelphia.
with a supporting statement from AG. Not a confirmation to join Texas.
This is what I would like to know. I clicked the link for my state to join (it was a td link so I could read what to do), it errored out and when I clicked back, it was gone. Search doesn't seem to work either 😕
You have to use the search site f mature on a search engine and set it to TDW
I believe in duck duck go it's
search site:thedonald.win search terms
You can just look up the contact information for your state's Attorney General and e-mail or call to request your state join Texas' filing.
Neil, Brett, Amy : Welcome to your first year. LOL
They "take the case" when they grant certioriari. This just means they want briefs submitted. After they grant cert they'll schedule oral hearings. They can still deny cert.
I think it's very difficult to deny cert in the Texas case. There's no question of standing. There's no question of circuit splits (because suits against States go straight to the Supreme Court). They really can only dismiss because if they claim all the claims in the Texas suit are baseless, and that would be really outrageous. So I think they'll take the case. But first, briefings.
Thanks for the outline.
This doesn't mean they're trying the case. Just reviewing it.
No, it only means it has been filed. So it pretty much means thing, but stupid faggots keep posting this fake news.
Well trump retweeted it, and another pede pointed out that there is no question of standing. So likely this should still be celebrated as the start of a lawsuit.
I can’t figure out if the certiorari procedures are applicable here, since the case was not heard by a lower court.
I believe there is no need for certiorari since SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cross-state matters, but a legal 'pede will have to correct me if I'm wrong.
Barnes has already tweeted that cases between states go directly to SCOTUS. No need for lower courts to get involved.
Which is the only logical possibility. There's no circuit court covering Texas and Pennsylvania anyway.
Barnes is correct, but there’s no guarantee SCOTUS will hear the case. They will let us know when they have decided.
While SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over disputes between states, historically they sometimes do not accept these suits. For example, in 2016 Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado concerning marijuana legalization. The court voted 6-2 not to take the case, without explanation. Thomas and Alito dissented, saying the Court should have taken the case.
I'm not sure, either. Waiting for an authoritative cite.
Putting it on the docket may not mean certiorari was granted. It may only mean that SCOTUS will consider whether to grant certiorari .
Docketing means nothing because to the best of my knowledge every case properly filed at the court receives a case docket number - many thousands of cases every year. Only a small fraction are ever heard. But this case has a much higher chance of actually being adjudicated because it invokes the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
This is correct. Being put on the docket just means the forms were correctly filled out and the filing fee was paid. The justices have not yet weighed in on it. It’s too early to make conclusions.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State is involved (Article III, Section 2, second paragraph). Suits against States where the plaintiff is a citizen of another State or country cannot be heard in Federal court (Amendment 11), but this is a suit by a State against another State.
Cert procedures are as usual though. The Court will ask for briefs, then it may grant or deny cert. Denying certiorari in this case would be outrageous. Texas has standing and an injury. There can be no circuit split because such cases always go to the SCOTUS directly, so appeals courts cannot be involved and so cannot disagree with each other. The only grounds for dismissing this case or denying cert. would be if all the claims are baseless, but that would be outrageous. So I expect they'll grant cert. I expect oral arguments.
The Court could schedule oral arguments after December 14, or even after December 19, but that would be outrageous as well. I expect they won't do that.
The Court could fail to rule before those deadlines, and that would be less outrageous because they could claim that they didn't have enough time, but then if they rule correctly the legislatures could still name their own Electors, then we'd have some States with two slates of Electoral College votes and a fight in Congress on January 6. However, if there's multiple Elector slates, Congress can pick which ones to accept using majority votes, so if we haven't taken back the House and kept the Senate, and even if we do (RINOs), we lose.
We can only force a contingent election (which Trump would win, RINOs and all) if no candidate reaches 270 EVs, and that can only happen if the Court rules before December 19.
We're nowhere near being out of the woods. The Insurrection Act option must still be on the table. Count your ammo, not your chickens.
Let go! Every fucking state needs to file against these basket case states run by chicom shilla
That’s just one.
There should be more coming is what I mean.
No you guys, EVERY case gets docketed. It’s how a court keeps track of the cases. Being docketed doesn’t mean a hearing will happen. The key is to see if and when (1) the petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED and (2) the date on which oral argument is scheduled.
Fake news retards strike again. This only means the case was FILED!
Was POTUS appeal to the SCOTUS denied because this case was taken instead?
Any idea of when this goes before the SCOTUS?
I’d imagine very soon, but they don’t have any rules or laws telling them when to schedule things. In normal times for normal cases, the answer would be “months”.
Docketing looks promising. It hasnt been accepted yet. Just cautioning the happening.
LMAO at the sad bastards on Reddit who were saying “the Supreme Court will never hear it”
Shit’s about to get entertaining real quick
If you remove all the bullshit it's all about the constitution and following it. Let's hope SCOTUS are dedicated to the constitution and capable to ignore all these emotions flowing everywhere.
hello i am happy
First, they had my attention.
Now, they have my erection.
TELL YOUR STATES! JOIN THE PARTY!
gg
Not to pee on the parade, it really just means the received the paperwork and will look at it. It doesn't mean the will take the case and issue any orders.
This just means it's received. That's it.
https://thedonald.win/p/11QlTsINON/scotus-will-hear-texas-case/c/
Seems like it is more than just saying it was "received"....could be wrong, but Imma go with the SCOTUS taking the case
Oh!! I'm glad I'm wrong! Thanks :)
SCOTUS will publicly announce if and when they take the case. Not some random guy on Twitter. And even if they do take the case, that does not guarantee standing. SCOTUS had taken cases before where, in their final decision, they decided the party bringing the suit did not have standing.
Tell that to SCOTUS. No, seriously. They decline these cases regularly (see, for example, the 2016 lawsuit Nebraska brought against Colorado). Maybe these new, constitutional justices will agree with Thomas that the court has to take these cases, but historically over the last century that has not been the case.
it's on the docket, they haven't taken it yet
If they are taking this, they have to take Trumps case, right?
Time to update the you are here memes pedes
That little arrow on that meme which says "you are here" has just moved down by a bit again. :)
IT’S OVER FOR THEM BOYS!
That's not what docketed means.
InigoMontoya.jpg
Great when do these hearings begin?
Brand new account that just posts this. Deported.