I think this must have been the plan from the beginning as I feel like that’s why Trump did not sue the shit out of states when they announced the changes in the first place. This was the planned outcome.
The criminal class runs down both sides of the aisle.
The RINOS aren't running away, exactly. They are doing exactly what they are told by their CCP masters.
Not a legal pede but many thanks for weighing in. As soon as I saw the kraken shit I thought to myself "if she was my lawyer I'd fire her" and then Team Trump said she's working on her own but this isn't a safe space to say that kind of thing.
Iread the facts through the prayer for relief. Right at the very end It says “costs awarded to plaintiff” which I assume will solely be Texas. Does this just mean If SCOTUS rules in our favor the defendant states pay the legal fees of the entire lawsuit to Texas?
If SCOTUS grants that prayer, yes, with the following caveat: if other states join the suit officially (it sounds like some have or will) they may get some compensation, too.
It is possible for TX to win on all other points and still not get costs, though.
A lot of it is based on Rudy's and Matt's work. As well as the numerous brave private citizens who provided sworn statements. Paxton had the strength of conviction to lead on this issue. He is a hero.
I think the two are inseparable. If all of these states hadn't illegally changed all of their mail in procedures at the last moment, we wouldn't have seen 178,384 absentee ballots that were unable to match to a registered voter (Page 28, Bullet 97).
Throwing in the fraud evidence doesn’t hurt, but it shouldn’t, as a legal matter, be needed.
If non-legislature actors changed election law, they violated the Electors Clause. If such violation affected a sufficient number of ballots (determined without consideration to any fraud), the election is FUBAR.
I hear vivafrei's synopsis (haven't read it entirely, sounds like a good one), and it appears they pretty much collated all the state-by-state fuckery and testimony and bundled it up under constitutional grounds with state standing for inter-state disputes. I've seen a couple of lib lawyers trying to attack it (typically on the grounds of unprecedented, no standing, this would open the flood gates to SCOTUS intervention since every state would bring suit every election, etc.). Do you have any take on the opposition arguments?
SCOTUS may well use such arguments to avoid disturbing the (fraudulent and unconstitutional) results. If we know anything, it’s that “conservative” SCOTUS Justices are often pussies, always shirking responsibility (meanwhile, liberal Justices make up shit from while cloth, like muh right to abortion).
I read their standing arguments. They rely on a number of arguments, mostly predictable. They brilliantly point out that the Senate represents the states and the VP, who is elected by electors, has a tie breaking vote in the Senate, which means the state has an interest here. IMHO, standing shouldn’t be a problem. Again, who knows what SCOTUS will do?
My secondary concern is a weak victory; succeed on the merits but dulled by surprisingly consenting Roberts or the like who neuters the remedy. Who knows; there is the self-interest argument that the co-equality of the branches are at stake, so if SCOTUS lets this roll then they are irrelevant in a couple of years. White knuckle ride.
My understanding, based on Jenna Ellis, is that the PA case has not been denied certiorari, Alito merely denied emergency relief. That is, it isn’t dead yet.
I would not expect SCOTUS to dismiss/refuse to hear the PA case based on the filing of the TX complaint.
I would not expect news today, but that’s just a gut instinct.
That's what I think too, but the texas lawsuit is basically arguing the same points Kelly is making with similar remedies right? I thought it would make more sense to just hear Texas before Kelly
Not sure what order they will hear them in (or if they will hear either), but the claims are different.
As I understand it, Kelly’s is largely based on state constitutional grounds, arguing that PA cannot alter mail-in ballot rules without a state constitutional process. This is probably false, as the Electors Clause (the focus of the TX suit) dictates that state legislatures have plenary power over the presidential election in their respective states. State constitutions cannot override this power. Of course, by the same rule, any body other than the state legislature could not modify the mail-in ballot rules without the legislature’s approval.
The TX lawsuit is Electors Clause/Equal Protection/Due Process based.
I don’t know what that report entails. Also, I am not a litigator, appellate or otherwise, and I have no clue about specific evidentiary standards at SCOTUS.
As a general rule, if it is relevant and non-prejudicial, it should get in.
Her suits have been tossed in GA and MI fed courts.
They wouldn’t directly lead to arrests anyway, they were civil suits. I suppose they could have uncovered evidence sufficient to force states and DOJ to pursue charges.
Show me the law allowing for military tribunals for election fraud. Don’t cite treason laws, this wouldn’t rise to treason. You can show me espionage laws, though.
And no, I’m not going to argue about the definition of treason with an armchair lawyer. Outside of war, treason basically doesn’t lie.
Now that the real kraken is released I can say this without the fear of being deported (lost acc during logout)
I'd really want to know what's up with sydney. She was a very sound and revered lawyer and only recently went down the qanon rabbit hole. Many such cases but the thing is, why did she :
file at the federal court, despite being advised otherwise
appeal to a higher court, despite being given a miracle with how the judge granted her a temporary restraining order on the machines to be inspected and a hearing. What more could you ask for
It's like she's either a grifter or deliberately sabotaging trump's chances spreading wild disinfo. That doesn't seem like her character at all though
Lin Wood however just showed his true colors when he misled Mike Lyndell's bail money for Kyle. He took 700k from him and dropped out the case. What the fuck
I'm glad that's behind us with this Texas moab though. We ought to find out what happened here in any case after this election
Sidney strikes me as in over her head. She, as a former prosecutor, should stick to criminal matters. Despite the pretty lame quality of her pleadings (so many typos and poorly written), they could give political cover to SCOTUS or state legislatures to act.
Wood is a grifter. He had financial disputes with his old partners and is a lifelong dem. He should be ridiculed and ignored.
I would put money on Senator Cruz having a hand in crafting this work of art.
Plausible. I read the whole thing (skimmed the motion for preliminary relief; it restated a lot of the foregoing stuff). It’s a banger.
I think this must have been the plan from the beginning as I feel like that’s why Trump did not sue the shit out of states when they announced the changes in the first place. This was the planned outcome.
Perhaps.
Fun fact: Bush v. Gore was filed December 8, 2000, and decided on the 12th.
SCOTUS has apparently accepted TX’s request for expedition in its December 8, 2020 suit, requiring a response by the 10th.
“History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes” – Mark Twain.
So Friday we drink whiskey is what you are saying.
Great men arise in difficult times. They don't hide are run away like the RINOs.
The criminal class runs down both sides of the aisle. The RINOS aren't running away, exactly. They are doing exactly what they are told by their CCP masters.
Not a legal pede but many thanks for weighing in. As soon as I saw the kraken shit I thought to myself "if she was my lawyer I'd fire her" and then Team Trump said she's working on her own but this isn't a safe space to say that kind of thing.
Lmao still puzzled everyone thinks they know EXACTLY what is happening regarding all of this when things are literally changing by the half-hour
Right there with you from Louisiana. Drop your cocks and grab your socks boys it's go time.
Iread the facts through the prayer for relief. Right at the very end It says “costs awarded to plaintiff” which I assume will solely be Texas. Does this just mean If SCOTUS rules in our favor the defendant states pay the legal fees of the entire lawsuit to Texas?
If SCOTUS grants that prayer, yes, with the following caveat: if other states join the suit officially (it sounds like some have or will) they may get some compensation, too.
It is possible for TX to win on all other points and still not get costs, though.
A lot of it is based on Rudy's and Matt's work. As well as the numerous brave private citizens who provided sworn statements. Paxton had the strength of conviction to lead on this issue. He is a hero.
It’s really based on con law arguments. They pepper in a few facts re fraud, but those are superfluous to the legal issues.
I think the two are inseparable. If all of these states hadn't illegally changed all of their mail in procedures at the last moment, we wouldn't have seen 178,384 absentee ballots that were unable to match to a registered voter (Page 28, Bullet 97).
Throwing in the fraud evidence doesn’t hurt, but it shouldn’t, as a legal matter, be needed.
If non-legislature actors changed election law, they violated the Electors Clause. If such violation affected a sufficient number of ballots (determined without consideration to any fraud), the election is FUBAR.
I hear vivafrei's synopsis (haven't read it entirely, sounds like a good one), and it appears they pretty much collated all the state-by-state fuckery and testimony and bundled it up under constitutional grounds with state standing for inter-state disputes. I've seen a couple of lib lawyers trying to attack it (typically on the grounds of unprecedented, no standing, this would open the flood gates to SCOTUS intervention since every state would bring suit every election, etc.). Do you have any take on the opposition arguments?
SCOTUS may well use such arguments to avoid disturbing the (fraudulent and unconstitutional) results. If we know anything, it’s that “conservative” SCOTUS Justices are often pussies, always shirking responsibility (meanwhile, liberal Justices make up shit from while cloth, like muh right to abortion).
I read their standing arguments. They rely on a number of arguments, mostly predictable. They brilliantly point out that the Senate represents the states and the VP, who is elected by electors, has a tie breaking vote in the Senate, which means the state has an interest here. IMHO, standing shouldn’t be a problem. Again, who knows what SCOTUS will do?
My secondary concern is a weak victory; succeed on the merits but dulled by surprisingly consenting Roberts or the like who neuters the remedy. Who knows; there is the self-interest argument that the co-equality of the branches are at stake, so if SCOTUS lets this roll then they are irrelevant in a couple of years. White knuckle ride.
I could totally see a “never again,” prospective only decision. Blargh.
Also, will it be a problem that the AG filed this not the SG? Some shill on 4chan pointed this out
I don’t think so. Without knowing the commenter’s argument, I can’t address anything specifically.
If he thinks the supposed defect relates to the SG’s role in appellate litigation, he is confused; this isn’t an appeal.
Last question, anything to expect from scotus today?
I'd imagine they're not going to hear Kelly's case in PA since this Texas suit supercedes it
My understanding, based on Jenna Ellis, is that the PA case has not been denied certiorari, Alito merely denied emergency relief. That is, it isn’t dead yet.
I would not expect SCOTUS to dismiss/refuse to hear the PA case based on the filing of the TX complaint.
I would not expect news today, but that’s just a gut instinct.
That's what I think too, but the texas lawsuit is basically arguing the same points Kelly is making with similar remedies right? I thought it would make more sense to just hear Texas before Kelly
Not sure what order they will hear them in (or if they will hear either), but the claims are different.
As I understand it, Kelly’s is largely based on state constitutional grounds, arguing that PA cannot alter mail-in ballot rules without a state constitutional process. This is probably false, as the Electors Clause (the focus of the TX suit) dictates that state legislatures have plenary power over the presidential election in their respective states. State constitutions cannot override this power. Of course, by the same rule, any body other than the state legislature could not modify the mail-in ballot rules without the legislature’s approval.
The TX lawsuit is Electors Clause/Equal Protection/Due Process based.
I would imagine that TX AG had a bit of a hand in drafting suit... ;)
I don’t know what that report entails. Also, I am not a litigator, appellate or otherwise, and I have no clue about specific evidentiary standards at SCOTUS.
As a general rule, if it is relevant and non-prejudicial, it should get in.
makes me proud to be a fellow Baylor grad! sic ‘em!
Her suits have been tossed in GA and MI fed courts.
They wouldn’t directly lead to arrests anyway, they were civil suits. I suppose they could have uncovered evidence sufficient to force states and DOJ to pursue charges.
Show me the law allowing for military tribunals for election fraud. Don’t cite treason laws, this wouldn’t rise to treason. You can show me espionage laws, though.
And no, I’m not going to argue about the definition of treason with an armchair lawyer. Outside of war, treason basically doesn’t lie.
Now that the real kraken is released I can say this without the fear of being deported (lost acc during logout)
I'd really want to know what's up with sydney. She was a very sound and revered lawyer and only recently went down the qanon rabbit hole. Many such cases but the thing is, why did she :
file at the federal court, despite being advised otherwise
appeal to a higher court, despite being given a miracle with how the judge granted her a temporary restraining order on the machines to be inspected and a hearing. What more could you ask for
It's like she's either a grifter or deliberately sabotaging trump's chances spreading wild disinfo. That doesn't seem like her character at all though
Lin Wood however just showed his true colors when he misled Mike Lyndell's bail money for Kyle. He took 700k from him and dropped out the case. What the fuck
I'm glad that's behind us with this Texas moab though. We ought to find out what happened here in any case after this election
Source: trust me bro
Sidney strikes me as in over her head. She, as a former prosecutor, should stick to criminal matters. Despite the pretty lame quality of her pleadings (so many typos and poorly written), they could give political cover to SCOTUS or state legislatures to act.
Wood is a grifter. He had financial disputes with his old partners and is a lifelong dem. He should be ridiculed and ignored.
To be fair, every single legal anything is in over their head on this one, it's unprecedented