1663
Comments (46)
sorted by:
75
radiskull1776 75 points ago +75 / -0

"Intervene" is a legal term. It means joining the lawsuit.

18
FreedomFighter87 18 points ago +18 / -0

Thank you. I was confused by this. At first, I got really excited because I didn't know what that meant. Still good news

9
radiskull1776 9 points ago +9 / -0

No problem buddy! It would be good news. I'm hopeful about this lawsuit.

4
Highball 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thanks.

43
Nemesis 43 points ago +43 / -0

In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a nonparty, called intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants.

21
One-Man_Riot 21 points ago +21 / -0

I wonder what he means by "intervening".

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
ViolentMinority 3 points ago +3 / -0

I dare SCOTUS to defy the CONSTITUTION.

8
bigdickhangsright 8 points ago +8 / -0

[Obamacare leaves the chat]

1
ViolentMinority 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good point, I hope they don't cross the line 1 too many times

1
NotDangerousGame 1 point ago +1 / -0

One time was too many, but this is a different court

5
PennsylPede1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

Most likely it means they're joining the suit as a plaintiff.

2
redhawk 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope he means adding evidence like of the servers overseas

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
15
muledriver 15 points ago +15 / -0

Dude, this needs to be said more often. Especially with all of the BREAKING! and IT'S HAPPENING! and Reddit-like upvote whoring going on here lately.

3
residue69 3 points ago +3 / -0

It always happens when a platform gets a lot of new users. Anyone remember Eternal September?

Eternal September or the September that never ended[1] is Usenet slang for a period beginning in September 1993,[2][3] the month that Internet service provider America Online (AOL) began offering Usenet access to its many users, overwhelming the existing culture for online forums.

2
muledriver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good point 👍

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
5
RoosterHeadBad 5 points ago +5 / -0

Trump is not only smarter than you, but you would have to study for a few centuries to be smarter than his entire legal team.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
RoosterHeadBad 2 points ago +2 / -0

You are smart. Ok, just one century!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
11
Churchill 11 points ago +11 / -0

Nah, intervene just means that they’d participate as a separate party because the case concerns matters important to them. Many people and groups will intervene to file “amicus” briefs, commenting on the arguments, either supporting or opposing the petitioner (Texas).

But the State of Texas would remain the petitioner and the Texas AG will manage the action.

2
faithalone 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'd recommend a subscription to The Epoch Times; they do a good job of explaining situations like this, and they're typically quick to get good information online. Here's an article about this issue: https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-says-he-will-intervene-in-texas-scotus-election-case_3611062.html.

A relevant quote from the article:

An intervention, in legal terms, is a procedure that lets a nonparty join ongoing litigation if the case affects the rights of that party. The court considering an application to intervene, in this case the U.S. Supreme Court, has the discretion to allow or deny such a request.

In the lawsuit, Texas is alleging that Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin introduced last-minute unconstitutional changes to election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures. The lawsuit is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution.

2
Dialectic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, yes we do need a win

2
HiddenDekuScrub 2 points ago +2 / -0

Legalese is a very strange language.

0
Flcentipede 0 points ago +1 / -1

Can they do that and not mess up original jurisdiction? I thought exclusive original jurisdiction in SCOTUS was only for disputes between states. Couldn't the campaign intervening be used as an excuse to kick the case?

-16
deleted -16 points ago +5 / -21
16
JohnBarron 16 points ago +17 / -1

Giuliani referenced this in the PA hearing. Perhaps you are inept. Trump had no legal standing to approach SCOTUS on his own.

-1
Churchill -1 points ago +1 / -2

I’m laughing because Giuliani complete f*cked it up at the hearing. He mixed up the Democratic primary figures with the general election numbers and confused the crap out of everybody. Giuliani should not have been making any presentations. He hasn’t seen the inside of a courtroom for 40 years and looked it.

13
Knowmadicsoul 13 points ago +13 / -0

I don't think it's a matter of Trump's legal team not being able to put together a decent complaint. I think it's got to do with legal "standing", forcing them to file in lower courts first, many with liberal judges who dismissed their cases for BS reasons. Since Texas is suing other states, citing violations of the US Constitution, it has to go directly to the Supreme Court.

-2
Churchill -2 points ago +1 / -3

No man. Their complaints have been shite.

In PA they ACCIDENTALLY DELETED THE KEY CLAIM IN THE COMPLAINT when they amended it and screwed themselves over.

8
pajama 8 points ago +9 / -1

Better it appear to come from the people then the campaign, so it will seem less political.

Also, states have original jurisdiction, where as an individual does not.

-9
Churchill -9 points ago +1 / -10

Having a state action is very helpful, I agree. But Trump has been so badly represented it is really absurd.

5
Dialectic 5 points ago +5 / -0

Trumps team did include the PA absentee numbers. Sounds like you fail at this

-1
Churchill -1 points ago +1 / -2

I do remember Giuliani confusing the number of mail ballot sent in the Democratic primary with the General Election at the meeting with PA legislators and confusing everybody.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
jdog 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't thinks it's that they were inept. More like they were overwhelmed. It's really 8 States that they had to do a tremendous amount of work in and they weren't prepared for that much legal action. Then they had a bunch of attorneys they were planning on using quite because they were being harassed.

I would guess that the Trump team has been working with Texas the entire time. It seems like Jordan and Jim Sekulow have a lot to do with this Texas suit.

-2
Churchill -2 points ago +1 / -3

What excuse does Trump and the GOP have to be overwhelmed? They should have been preparing for this for 4 effin’ years.

1
jdog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Excuse?! Only the biggest election steal in history! By far!

0
Churchill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes, and that wasn’t expected? From the moment he came into office there should have been a person assigned to each swing state to figure out how to defend the President there at his reelection. We knew the Dems would do everything they could to get rid of him.