8466
Comments (1315)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
54
Chuggatrumptrain 54 points ago +55 / -1

Legal noob here, so what's the legal significance of filing a brief?

76
Viewer01 76 points ago +76 / -0

The more voices crying foul the harder it is for SCOTUS to ignore. When the states are in agreement that they're getting fucked over by crooks, you take notice.

Non judicially its a shot across the bow to the blue states and their crooks that these shenanigans are not going to be tolerated. This is quite frankly the start to some pretty bad blood, and southerners are loathe to forget an offense.

Especially when Biden gets in and starts wrecking our economy for China.

28
deleted 28 points ago +28 / -0
17
tk6214 17 points ago +17 / -0

Stop writing porn Rathael I can only become so erect

3
juicemoney9 3 points ago +3 / -0

unzips pants

3
Two_Scoops__ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Does it make a difference if they surpass more than half the states?

5
JohnCClark 5 points ago +5 / -0

From a legal standpoint, it technically shouldn't matter. It just "looks" good.

From a practical standpoint, "looks" have a way of mattering more than they technically should.

1
TheGreatReset_120720 1 point ago +1 / -0

Very well put

5
ThePantsParty 5 points ago +6 / -1

It doesn't matter if it were literally every single state...SCOTUS has to decide whether to grant their petition to submit the case based on issues of standing, merits, etc, which are all legal determinations. They aren't going to take a vote of the states to make that decision.

46
IncredibleMrE1 46 points ago +46 / -0

17 states are saying Texas was right to file the lawsuit. SCOTUS cannot ignore this.

42
tdwinner2020 42 points ago +42 / -0

Amici curiae briefs can add:

  • useful arguments
  • heft, gravitas
  • noise

Noise is not a problem: the Court will ignore it. Worst case these briefs add nothing. Best case they add winning arguments.

17
deleted 17 points ago +17 / -0
4
kag-2020- 4 points ago +5 / -1

You're not exaggerating in the least. Especially since the people running the election fraud are in bed with foreign enemies. This is for all the marbles and I couldn't be happier to see so many states standing up in spite of all the corruption. Looks like Justice is back on the menu!

22
FireannDireach 22 points ago +22 / -0

The significance here is numerous state AGs are putting it on record that they feel they're party to this case (they've been impacted) and that the court should rule for Texas.

This will play into the SCOTUS decision significantly. When a large percentage of states are crying foul in unison, you pay attention.

1
prayharder 1 point ago +1 / -0

As a non-attorney, I believe that "amicus curiae" describes parties who have zero claim to damages, and are explicitly not a party to the case. I just looked it up on wikipedia.

However, I sure hope this is a technicality, and that the implication is that these states feel they have also been damaged by the election fraud situation.

Edited to add: okay I just read some of the actual document, which says "MISSOURI AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION..." so helps answer part of my question I had...

21
Davinci 21 points ago +21 / -0

It adds credence to the original petitioner.