SCJs have huge balls. Just ask RBG, who died at age 265 after a tenure of 140 years in the court from swinging a gavel too hard and her huge balls upsetting her balance and causing her to fall onto the guilty, crushing them instantly and killing them both.
Liberal wimmin have to have balls for the SCOTUS, that’s why Big Mike has been shopping for a judges robe. He’s gonna be so disappointed when sniffing Joe is locked in his GITMO basement
Can you explain via the law why it was incorrect/insufficient? I feel like some people really want constitutionalists but then get mad occasionally when only the constitution is used to decide certain things. AKA that some things may be constitutional but morally or even scientifically incorrect.
The transgender case accepts liberal talking points as fact. He refers to a man calling himself a woman as "her," "she," etc. The premise that whatever gender I say I am, I legally am, is accepted. Even if he goes on to say he's not deciding that officially, he still accepts the premise through his language.
Beyond that, if you read that text without knowing who wrote it, it sounds like RGB's ghost. It's writing law rather than interpreting it. It's adding words to a statute that doesn't have those words. He makes all the arguments leftist judge's make when they make law from the bench.
Additionally, or maybe because of that, a lot of his logic seems... stupid, tbh. He tries to attack the issue from all of these angles and most of them don't hold up, especially in regards to transgenderism (the homosexuality arguments aren't quite as bad.) Particularly, his hypothetical about a check box on applications for being black or catholic doesn't make any sense in relation to the argument he's making.
Discrimination based on homo/heterosexuality or trans/cisgenderism is NOT the same as discrimination based on sex (particularly they were not the same when the law was passed) but he wrote that language in through his opinion.
As the LettertotheSpezitor response says, yes, the dissent spells it out quite well. Basically he reads into the statute something that was never there, namely transgenderism. He accepts the transgender propaganda and terminology and then rewrites the law to promote the leftist transgender agenda. A leftist activist judicial thing to do. Not a good sign that he is a clear thinker or immune to leftist propaganda.
Legislatures, on the other hand, do and should bend to public opinion. In case it gets kicked back to them - a likely outcome, since most of the argument is that they were circumvented - I hope it's been made clear to them what the public opinion is.
Nicely put. One reason why Senators were not up for direct election originally was to prevent "the passions of the day" from affecting both houses. The House acted as a deliberative body before selecting Senators.
Took me a minute to readjust the mental image to, "On the couch, scratching my balls." At first, I thought moving your balls back and forth along the couch in defiance of your governor.
SCOTUS can call for new elections, but the remedy being sought is that votes cast without chain of custody be ignored including all votes counted after election day.
Million dollar question. We don't even know if they will take it. This is a kitchen sink move because it looks like Rudy and Jenna got inside info from the SCOTUS that a normal writ of certiorlari from a political campaign wasn't gonna get even a hearing. With states suing, OTOH, that is a completely different avenue and it makes it more likely for the SCOTUS to pick it up for hearings.
That actually sounds bad. If they've been following any of the Senate hearings at all, they have to know that there is a very real possibility of massive fraud, and if they decided that, knowing there might be something to the claim, still decided they weren't going to take the case somehow, that's a pretty good indicator of how they will rule in the Texas case.
I'm worried this will be a case of "too corrupt to lose."
The Texas case doesn't allege voter fraud or need fraud to be proven, it demonstrates how the defendant states ignored the Constitutional parameters when making their election laws. The laws are written, the counts are certified; Texas followed the Constitution and the defendant states did not. This violates equal protection under the law (the votes of Texas are diluted by votes made in Constitution-breaking states). So Texas is asking, "is there a legally binding Constitution or is this anarchy now?" But the proof is in the laws used, and bypasses the questions of voter fraud. If they rule against Texas, allowing the Constitution to be breached without consequence, the Constitution itself is invalidated, the republic/union/country is dissolved. If it doesn't apply to everyone, it doesn't apply to anyone.
Constitutionally, the election rules for the state are crafted by state legislature. When changes are made by other persons/bodies, that is a violation of the Constitution. The tabulation results or any accompanying fraud is actually irrelevant.
"These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
I'm also an English teacher and I wouldn't fail you, but instead I'd sit you down and teach you the correct usage of common english colloquialisms so you can learn and do better next time. Weird how we're different like that :)
They also know that they're on the clock. So they may have not taken the other case because they knew this one was coming, is more or less the same constitutional argument, and is more substantial because of the opportunity for multiple states to join the suit.
Just another possibility, one that I think holds merit since the previous case was unanimously declined by all 9 justices
They didn’t reject the other case, they just denied the injunction, which is covered by the Texas case anyway. The fact that it was 9–0 should make you feel better about that.
Yeah a PA judge recognizes fraud and illegality and enjoins certification but is overruled by a corrupt Dem majority PA supreme court. And not one US Supreme Court justice thinks they should even give that a hearing? After telling PA to keep ballots separated and that SCOTUS order being ignored??
That doesn't sound right, does it? The fact that even our most staunchest conservatives did nothing should cue you in that they moved to a bigger play, being the Texas case.
The injunction was a pre-case request. The case still exists, and Justice Alito wouldn't have taken it just to drop it immediately. Texas changed the name of the game.
The United Retard- and Communist-Free States of America. Or URCFSA. Sounding that acronym out in my head sounds like Cum Allah throwing up after blowing Joe Biden so she could be President.
This is literally what they do. Handling appeals and Constitutional arguments is job #2. Job #1 is handling interstate disputes (especially Constitutional ones). Trump could not file this because he has "no standing", and would always have to deal with corrupt lower courts. But State v. State has nowhere to go but SCOTUS. Standing is implicit. This case is what SCOTUS was made for.
"Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm."
I’m married to a criminal defense atty. He says “everyone deserves a fair trial” and that is his job to provide. No emotional or personal attachment. I love that Gorsuch made this clear. Live by the law!
Thats nice and yet we know judges ignore this and legislate from the bench including in the S.C. so you can prove it now by not fucking this up and actually follow the constitution. Also get rid of commie liberals off the court.
The problem isn’t just votes and popularity. It’s your family getting killed by a guy dressed up like a fedex driver who then goes and self destructs.
It’s your daughters boyfriend getting into an explosive “car accident”
There are a lot of ways to force people to misuse their power even with a lifetime appointment. How many kids does ACB have? That’s a lot of leverage for the wrong people. Not to mention what they did to her mentor. Kavanaugh clearly has a family he loves very much.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
There are enough who still believe this. The remnant will save The Republic.
If any of the supremes were threatened I guarantee you there are tens of millions of people currently standing down and standing by ready to provide protection. The SCJs would have literal personal armies until the threat was resolved.
I can imagine there's plenty of overzealous Secret Service agents chomping at the bit for the go ahead to tag and bag some scumbag commies threatening the wrong people.
Copied my comment from another post, a reply to
u/Reaper088. I think it's relevant here too:
This is an interesting theory, and one that resonates with me.
It didn't make sense to me that exactly zero justices- not even Alito or Thomas- issued a statement when they unanimously refused the Pennsylvania case.
I could see Roberts and the libs, and maybe even one or two others voting to not take it, but all 9? And then to not issue a statement as to why?
Perhaps it was because they knew this Texas case was coming. The Constitutionalist stalwarts Alito and Thomas (and likely others) didn't want to waste time on a case that, while solid, also did not provide the chance to present new evidence discovered since the initial Pennsylvania filing.
So they dismissed it out of hand, knowing that the Texas case would be arguing from essentially the same position, but with more flexibility and an opportunity for more states to join the suit, thereby making for a much more substantial case, both in front of the bench and in the court of public opinion.
Exactly. The cases were crafted over the course of a few weeks and clerks most likely talked to members of the court or their staff. SCOTUS needed to make sure their ruling will put the issue to bed and it needed all angles covered. They understand the moment very clearly, get it right, or, it all falls apart.
I think if history of this moment was completely honest, the court was giving info on how to deliver the right case.
Good book. I read most of it. When he talks about the textualist vs "living constitution' viewpoint it is scary. Including that the latter is very often taught in law schools.
I liked his account of a regulatory law that changed and changed back again... and a company was fined for a violation of a regulation that wasn't enforced at the time the violation happened. This is what Trumps legacy can and will be... we need to disassemble the regulatory structure and let our economy breathe... look at the results un just the last 4 years.
In this case... I think... Texas is saying "why do their elecoral outcomes get counted when their legisltatures didn't follow the constitution." Seems straightforward.
They HAVE to take this case or Our Constitution will no longer be the law of the land and the US Supreme Court will be law clerks, checking comma placement for meaning. I’m looking at Sotomayor. She was raised a good Catholic girl—she even reached back to that (I believe) to make a decision for the Little Sisters of the Poor. Kagan may surprise us as well. THIS IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY AND THE CONSTITUTION MAKES IT SO!!! Dig in, Ladies and Gentleman, dig in!
Gorsuch is really the only one that didn't face major character assassination. He's the one I'd be worried about. Robert's is gone, I don't even think about him.
That’s basically the entire premise of this case. What’s more important in the country, the rule of law and the constitution or public opinion and fee fees?
When we follow just laws, we follow God's will, when we serve true justice, we serve God. Even if you're an atheist, if you're educated, you understand that these rules, laws, have more meaning than the life of an individual, representing millenia worth of philosophy, debate and incorporate various life views and several consecutive enlightenments all establishing the sanctity of our rights, duties and the place of an individual in society.
They are our civilization's lifeblood, codified, if it fails in this most constitutional fashion, it would be like suffering a heart attack; it will severely cripple civlization and cast us into darkness, pain, suffering.
Oh, and I'm not an American, just feel the need to point that out; I'm one of the Europeans who live in a relatively socialist country. Can we borrow Trump when he's no longer allowed to continue being president over there? Pretty Please?
First, they need to take up the case. Just because it's on the docket doesn't mean they will take it. They will at the very least review it and then decide if they want to take it. I say this because a lot of people think that just because it has a docket number it means they're going to hear it...NO! They agreed to REVIEW it. I'm 90% sure they will take it up but 10% that they won't.
Gorsuch definitely will side with Trump. Looking at his prior ruling to declare almost the entirety of Oklahoma as belonging to an Indian reservation he seems to be a very strict constitutionalist no matter what. I’m most worried about kavanaugh and ACB, don’t know what they’ll do.
I think Thomas and Alito are sure votes. Gorsuch Kavanaugh, and Barret are likely. Roberts is a toss up, probably against. Breyer, Sotmayor and Kagan will be 100% against.
I fully expect someone behind the scenes to threaten every single SCOTUS judge with something if they rule in Texas's favor, especially towards the ones Trump got in.
Just because Gorsuch wrote this does not mean he will do the right thing.
Look at John Roberts. This Piece of Shit is a puppet for the Clinton / Obama Cabal. They control him and it doesn't help that his name is on flight records to Epstein Island.
We'll see, I'm praying SCOTUS does the right thing, but remember both Gorsucks and Kavanaugh have already let us down. Gorsucks lied, he is not a constitutional originalist.
I'm assuming Kavanaugh and ACB will vote against the President because Texas doesn't have a confession from Biden signed in blood. Only the authoritarians seem to have the ability to stick with their ideology in spite of muh optics
Bro the 4 states getting sued straight up BROKE THE CONSTITUTION. If anything, THEY are trying to appeal to feelings. Just look at the PA Supreme Court's response after Alito forced them to speak for the discrepancies in their state. If law is followed then we win. As simple as that. If law isn't followed then we still win because since they disregarded the law we can do the same and count "mail in electoral college votes".
It rests on the assumption that SCOTUS can tell States how they can run their own elections, while the Constitution makes it clear that it's the States the decide the rules.
The judicial branch does not have the authority to make laws. That's on the legislative branch according to the constitution. Seeing as it's the law of the land, for our contract to be binding, the states have to follow it first and foremost.
The PA legislature, e.g., Senator Doug Mastriano, is accepting the results? Holy shit, what the fuck are you talking about?
And even if they were, they're not allowed to openly greenlight a violation of their state's constitution. In doing so, they disenfranchise voters in other states, which is the entire point of the TX lawsuit!
No, the state's own constitution and legislature is the authority on setting the parameters for choosing electors - so if the PA supreme court rules that the state's secretary of state and governor can override the state constitution (which in PA allows ONLY in person voting and absentee ballots only with valid reasons for voting absentee) and override the legislature, that's what SCOTUS is for - to correct entirely wrong rulings by lower courts / state courts.
Bro, the states didn't cheat according to the lawsuit.
Each state is able to decide its own election rules, including mass mail in ballots and no signature verification. Are you with me so far?
Texas is arguing that the states in question didn't follow their own rules to change the election procedures. But who decides if a state followed its own rules? The state's Supreme Court.
I'm not saying that we have no chance by the way. I'm thinking in terms of 50-50 chances. But believing that the Demonrats will have no argument and will just roll into a ball and call us racist, well, that's making a disservice to our movement. We need to be ready for SCOTUS not going our way.
No, I’m not with you so far, because you’re not getting specific enough and therefore you’re missing the entire point of the case.
Article II of the Constitution specifically says not just each state, but each state’s legislature must decide the manner of elections. When they mass mandated mail-in ballots, they skirted around the requirement that any election changes have to be passed through the legislature via a law first.
Your argument is flawed because in this instance, the State Supreme Court does not in fact hold more weight than Article II, which specifically mandates what they should have done with regard to mail-in ballots. Yes, the states have final say in how they run their elections — and no, they did not do it properly. Both can be true.
Sure, let’s definitely be ready for every eventuality. I don’t think anyone on this forum is unprepared; we sit here practically every day clamoring for the insurrection act. But just sitting here saying BRO DID U EVEN READ BRO to people on your own team when you have zero understanding of the most basic argument of this lawsuit is really fucking annoying. Please go back and read it again with this in mind. We’ll wait — and welcome you back with open arms once you’ve got it.
Thank you for the discussion and the kind words at the end. But I don't think you understand my argument, which is the argument that the Demonrats will make.
each state’s legislature must decide the manner of elections. When they mass mandated mail-in ballots, they skirted around the requirement that any election changes have to be passed through the legislature via a law first.
I get that. But a state legislature can delegate what they do. They are not required to rule on any tiny detail of the election; and we're not talking about tiny details, but still, they can exercise their power by simply sitting back and letting the Governor do rules for them.
The fact that state legislatures didn't oppose the rules set up by the election officials, and they are not even contesting the results, it's a strong argument to say the state legislatures did in fact used their authority to accept the changes.
Your second sentence is not completely correct: the US Constitution says that the legislatures direct the manner of the election, it doesn't say that they need to pass legislation.
Imagine a big corporation. The CEO is in charge. But not every decision passes by the CEO, although the CEO can come down and order which water cooler to buy if he wants to. Texas is like a guy outside of the company arguing that the company didn't respect its own internal procedures, so a contract is void because it doesn't have the CEO signature.
Please don't underestimate this argument. This is the argument that the Demonrats brought in a Rudy case in PA. And they won. Yes, the judge was a political hack, but their argument is not weak.
Churchill said: remember that there wouldn't be a war ifvthe other side didn't think they had a chance
The SCOTUS can tell the states how to run a Presidential election. Even though elections are done for many seats at different places, when the rules are set for one day of voting that ends at a specific time, for President, SCOTUS is the only authority between states on this issue.
It CAN have an effect on other races for the sole reason of a compelling case with evidence, if, it’s there. If doubt has been cast in the Presidential election, it will give state processes a point to argue for internal state business on addressing questions about other elections,
Election is called on Election Day. Not three days later.
The Texas lawsuit doesn't bring this up at all.
Laws made by legislature and not judges or governors.
Yes, but are the respective legislatures of the 4 states in question saying shit? No they aren't. They have accepted the Demonrats rules, and they have accepted the fraudulent results.
You need to understand this. There is a massive difference between the PA legislature stepping in and rejecting the result (which they certainly have the power to do), and the AG of another state stepping in and telling them what they should have done.
It's like I'm telling you that you shouldn't slap your wife when your wife takes it willingly and enjoys it.
A third party can't do shit if the wife doesn't speak out.
Also, SCOTUS already knows that the election ends on Election Day. They don’t need it in a brief or a filing.
I don't think they would rule on a question that was not put to them.
I keep hearing this argument about election ending on election day, but I don't think anyone has put a lawsuit forward for this. Which makes me think it has no merit.
Yes, but are the respective legislatures of the 4 states in question saying shit? No they aren't. They have accepted the Demonrats rules, and they have accepted the fraudulent results.
If they didn't say anything, it can be argued that they never agreed to it.
I think the argument is that whether the process was followed for changes to the election. I think this includes votes in 2 seperate sessions etc...
SCJs have huge balls. Just ask RBG, who died at age 265 after a tenure of 140 years in the court from swinging a gavel too hard and her huge balls upsetting her balance and causing her to fall onto the guilty, crushing them instantly and killing them both.
^ This guy had his morning covefe.
Hope it was Stocking Mill brand
Can't get in Canada, arrowhead coffee is vet owned.
Exactly what I needed to read while having mine as well
Fake news! She died after accidentally dropping the 600 lb weight she was bench pressing. CNN told me.
Why wasn't Chris "Dumbbell" Cuomo spotting her?
He doesnt have the balls!
RBG was avoiding the Male Gaze.
Hahahahaha! That’s great. Male gaze. Ha.
He hadn’t risen from the depths of his basement.
Joe Biden and here ran 25 miles a day in the forests of Delaware, that's why no one ever saw them. This proves how healthy and vibrant they both were!
Lol
You’ve watched CNN, I see.
This is all true I was there
Liberal wimmin have to have balls for the SCOTUS, that’s why Big Mike has been shopping for a judges robe. He’s gonna be so disappointed when sniffing Joe is locked in his GITMO basement
Yup. Just as a note, there are two liberal male justices: Roberts and Breyer, the latter of whom everyone seems to forget exists lol.
My favorite Breyer is Rocky Road.
Lol I love Breyer’s ice cream too!
Chuckled at this one.
Either the selection process scared them for life or made them stronger
Gorsuch's bullshit transgender and Oklahoma rulings don't exactly fill me with confidence, but I am hopeful nonetheless.
Wasn't the oklahoma ruling based on a technicality
Yes, but it was a completely ridiculous technicality. If you read the dissent, in my opinion it's clear why it's ridiculous.
Can you explain via the law why it was incorrect/insufficient? I feel like some people really want constitutionalists but then get mad occasionally when only the constitution is used to decide certain things. AKA that some things may be constitutional but morally or even scientifically incorrect.
The transgender case accepts liberal talking points as fact. He refers to a man calling himself a woman as "her," "she," etc. The premise that whatever gender I say I am, I legally am, is accepted. Even if he goes on to say he's not deciding that officially, he still accepts the premise through his language.
Beyond that, if you read that text without knowing who wrote it, it sounds like RGB's ghost. It's writing law rather than interpreting it. It's adding words to a statute that doesn't have those words. He makes all the arguments leftist judge's make when they make law from the bench.
Additionally, or maybe because of that, a lot of his logic seems... stupid, tbh. He tries to attack the issue from all of these angles and most of them don't hold up, especially in regards to transgenderism (the homosexuality arguments aren't quite as bad.) Particularly, his hypothetical about a check box on applications for being black or catholic doesn't make any sense in relation to the argument he's making.
Discrimination based on homo/heterosexuality or trans/cisgenderism is NOT the same as discrimination based on sex (particularly they were not the same when the law was passed) but he wrote that language in through his opinion.
I highly recommend reading the dissent.
As the LettertotheSpezitor response says, yes, the dissent spells it out quite well. Basically he reads into the statute something that was never there, namely transgenderism. He accepts the transgender propaganda and terminology and then rewrites the law to promote the leftist transgender agenda. A leftist activist judicial thing to do. Not a good sign that he is a clear thinker or immune to leftist propaganda.
It wouldn't be the tolerant left that would do the death threats now would it..?
Legislatures, on the other hand, do and should bend to public opinion. In case it gets kicked back to them - a likely outcome, since most of the argument is that they were circumvented - I hope it's been made clear to them what the public opinion is.
The genius of our Founders:
The House was built to take in the passions of the day and commit them to writing.
The Senate was built to take on, and take down, the passions of the day given to them by the House.
The Judiciary was built to steer both in the direction of the Constitution.
Nicely put. One reason why Senators were not up for direct election originally was to prevent "the passions of the day" from affecting both houses. The House acted as a deliberative body before selecting Senators.
Took me a minute to readjust the mental image to, "On the couch, scratching my balls." At first, I thought moving your balls back and forth along the couch in defiance of your governor.
I would say no, no, yes and yes, respectively. But I also wouldn't trust anybody who gives definitive answers to those questions right now.
SCOTUS can call for new elections, but the remedy being sought is that votes cast without chain of custody be ignored including all votes counted after election day.
When is the court case and will it be shown to the public?
Million dollar question. We don't even know if they will take it. This is a kitchen sink move because it looks like Rudy and Jenna got inside info from the SCOTUS that a normal writ of certiorlari from a political campaign wasn't gonna get even a hearing. With states suing, OTOH, that is a completely different avenue and it makes it more likely for the SCOTUS to pick it up for hearings.
That actually sounds bad. If they've been following any of the Senate hearings at all, they have to know that there is a very real possibility of massive fraud, and if they decided that, knowing there might be something to the claim, still decided they weren't going to take the case somehow, that's a pretty good indicator of how they will rule in the Texas case.
I'm worried this will be a case of "too corrupt to lose."
The Texas case doesn't allege voter fraud or need fraud to be proven, it demonstrates how the defendant states ignored the Constitutional parameters when making their election laws. The laws are written, the counts are certified; Texas followed the Constitution and the defendant states did not. This violates equal protection under the law (the votes of Texas are diluted by votes made in Constitution-breaking states). So Texas is asking, "is there a legally binding Constitution or is this anarchy now?" But the proof is in the laws used, and bypasses the questions of voter fraud. If they rule against Texas, allowing the Constitution to be breached without consequence, the Constitution itself is invalidated, the republic/union/country is dissolved. If it doesn't apply to everyone, it doesn't apply to anyone.
Well the brief does list tons of brazen anomalies that point towards fraud. It illustrates an intent to commit fraud by the legislatures in question.
YES!!!
That was Beautiful
Constitutionally, the election rules for the state are crafted by state legislature. When changes are made by other persons/bodies, that is a violation of the Constitution. The tabulation results or any accompanying fraud is actually irrelevant.
"These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution."
"No harmful intent" lol..
Maybe this is why Trump is intervening? He'd be the damaged party, right?
I'm also an English teacher and I wouldn't fail you, but instead I'd sit you down and teach you the correct usage of common english colloquialisms so you can learn and do better next time. Weird how we're different like that :)
They also know that they're on the clock. So they may have not taken the other case because they knew this one was coming, is more or less the same constitutional argument, and is more substantial because of the opportunity for multiple states to join the suit.
Just another possibility, one that I think holds merit since the previous case was unanimously declined by all 9 justices
They didn’t reject the other case, they just denied the injunction, which is covered by the Texas case anyway. The fact that it was 9–0 should make you feel better about that.
Yeah a PA judge recognizes fraud and illegality and enjoins certification but is overruled by a corrupt Dem majority PA supreme court. And not one US Supreme Court justice thinks they should even give that a hearing? After telling PA to keep ballots separated and that SCOTUS order being ignored??
Yeah that makes me feel great.
That doesn't sound right, does it? The fact that even our most staunchest conservatives did nothing should cue you in that they moved to a bigger play, being the Texas case.
The injunction was a pre-case request. The case still exists, and Justice Alito wouldn't have taken it just to drop it immediately. Texas changed the name of the game.
I agree. The signals are not great so far. I hope I am wrong, but I would be surprised if they had the courage to do the right thing.
if scotus refuses to pick up the case the union will dissolve. they have to know the stakes here. indecision would be disaster.
Shit. Do you think Texas would take based Maryland refugees like myself?
The United Retard- and Communist-Free States of America. Or URCFSA. Sounding that acronym out in my head sounds like Cum Allah throwing up after blowing Joe Biden so she could be President.
what do they even do all day for their job if they can 'not take' such a big case?
This is literally what they do. Handling appeals and Constitutional arguments is job #2. Job #1 is handling interstate disputes (especially Constitutional ones). Trump could not file this because he has "no standing", and would always have to deal with corrupt lower courts. But State v. State has nowhere to go but SCOTUS. Standing is implicit. This case is what SCOTUS was made for.
We find out today at 3:00.
Any sauce? Want to share with family
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
See the Dec. 8th "proceedings and orders"
"Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm."
That seems to say the response is due then, not that the Supremes are meeting on it at the same time?
The response will determine the subsequent action by the court, I assume.
Thank you, friend!
That’s when the review is scheduled in the SC docket. Brb w link
No idea on the when. Nope, will not be shown to the public.
If we ever do see it, it will probably be on PornHub
I’m married to a criminal defense atty. He says “everyone deserves a fair trial” and that is his job to provide. No emotional or personal attachment. I love that Gorsuch made this clear. Live by the law!
Thats nice and yet we know judges ignore this and legislate from the bench including in the S.C. so you can prove it now by not fucking this up and actually follow the constitution. Also get rid of commie liberals off the court.
This is why the SC has lifetime appointments. They are not supposed to be beholden to the mob, but The Constitution.
The problem isn’t just votes and popularity. It’s your family getting killed by a guy dressed up like a fedex driver who then goes and self destructs.
It’s your daughters boyfriend getting into an explosive “car accident”
There are a lot of ways to force people to misuse their power even with a lifetime appointment. How many kids does ACB have? That’s a lot of leverage for the wrong people. Not to mention what they did to her mentor. Kavanaugh clearly has a family he loves very much.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
There are enough who still believe this. The remnant will save The Republic.
They can also just Scalia them.
Look, if ACBs kids are threatened, Trump will send in actual Jason Bournes to get things done. I really doubt threats like that are going to work.
If any of the supremes were threatened I guarantee you there are tens of millions of people currently standing down and standing by ready to provide protection. The SCJs would have literal personal armies until the threat was resolved.
No doubt, stakes a really high now. Who knows what's lurking in the shadows...
I can imagine there's plenty of overzealous Secret Service agents chomping at the bit for the go ahead to tag and bag some scumbag commies threatening the wrong people.
Unfortunately this is spot on
Funy you didn't bother assessing Roberts.
Who thinks that President should have a new list of SC nominees based solely on the list of AGs that are in the Texas lawsuit!
Cruz is the only real finalist.
Cruz is a great choice but I want Cruz for 2024.
I thought so too... But I think Justice would suit h so much better. IDK. Desantis?
Cruz can do like Taft and get appointed to the SC in 2032 after two terms as POTUS.
Now we're making headway.
That's a weird passage to read considering John Roberts and the liberal justices are still towing the party line.
Copied my comment from another post, a reply to u/Reaper088. I think it's relevant here too:
This is an interesting theory, and one that resonates with me.
It didn't make sense to me that exactly zero justices- not even Alito or Thomas- issued a statement when they unanimously refused the Pennsylvania case.
I could see Roberts and the libs, and maybe even one or two others voting to not take it, but all 9? And then to not issue a statement as to why?
Perhaps it was because they knew this Texas case was coming. The Constitutionalist stalwarts Alito and Thomas (and likely others) didn't want to waste time on a case that, while solid, also did not provide the chance to present new evidence discovered since the initial Pennsylvania filing.
So they dismissed it out of hand, knowing that the Texas case would be arguing from essentially the same position, but with more flexibility and an opportunity for more states to join the suit, thereby making for a much more substantial case, both in front of the bench and in the court of public opinion.
Exactly. The cases were crafted over the course of a few weeks and clerks most likely talked to members of the court or their staff. SCOTUS needed to make sure their ruling will put the issue to bed and it needed all angles covered. They understand the moment very clearly, get it right, or, it all falls apart.
I think if history of this moment was completely honest, the court was giving info on how to deliver the right case.
Great point!
They didn't refuse the Pennsylvania case, they refused to issue an emergency injunction.
Good book. I read most of it. When he talks about the textualist vs "living constitution' viewpoint it is scary. Including that the latter is very often taught in law schools.
I liked his account of a regulatory law that changed and changed back again... and a company was fined for a violation of a regulation that wasn't enforced at the time the violation happened. This is what Trumps legacy can and will be... we need to disassemble the regulatory structure and let our economy breathe... look at the results un just the last 4 years.
In this case... I think... Texas is saying "why do their elecoral outcomes get counted when their legisltatures didn't follow the constitution." Seems straightforward.
They HAVE to take this case or Our Constitution will no longer be the law of the land and the US Supreme Court will be law clerks, checking comma placement for meaning. I’m looking at Sotomayor. She was raised a good Catholic girl—she even reached back to that (I believe) to make a decision for the Little Sisters of the Poor. Kagan may surprise us as well. THIS IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY AND THE CONSTITUTION MAKES IT SO!!! Dig in, Ladies and Gentleman, dig in!
worried about kavanaugh
You do realize Kamala was the one who led the charge not to seat him, right? This is personal, for all the players.
Gorsuch is really the only one that didn't face major character assassination. He's the one I'd be worried about. Robert's is gone, I don't even think about him.
Brett, the secret democrat vote fraud sympathizer? Somehow I just don't see it.
Did you forget what heels up Harris did to him in his confirmation hearing? I bet he hasn't.
This is only valid if the judges themselves are not activists, who personify whims and wishes of public opinion.
P.S: Good riddance to RBG.
If I had to guess, I think the dissenting judges will be leaning hard on the 10th amendment (states rights). But it's gonna be an interesting ride.
That’s basically the entire premise of this case. What’s more important in the country, the rule of law and the constitution or public opinion and fee fees?
DRAGON ENERGY RADIATING FROM THE SCOTUS BENCH!
JOHN ROBERTS, DON’T CUCK OUT NOW!
THIS CASE SHOULD BE 9-0! CONSTITUTION V TYRANNY.
that last sentence
That sounds positive
When we follow just laws, we follow God's will, when we serve true justice, we serve God. Even if you're an atheist, if you're educated, you understand that these rules, laws, have more meaning than the life of an individual, representing millenia worth of philosophy, debate and incorporate various life views and several consecutive enlightenments all establishing the sanctity of our rights, duties and the place of an individual in society.
They are our civilization's lifeblood, codified, if it fails in this most constitutional fashion, it would be like suffering a heart attack; it will severely cripple civlization and cast us into darkness, pain, suffering.
Oh, and I'm not an American, just feel the need to point that out; I'm one of the Europeans who live in a relatively socialist country. Can we borrow Trump when he's no longer allowed to continue being president over there? Pretty Please?
First, they need to take up the case. Just because it's on the docket doesn't mean they will take it. They will at the very least review it and then decide if they want to take it. I say this because a lot of people think that just because it has a docket number it means they're going to hear it...NO! They agreed to REVIEW it. I'm 90% sure they will take it up but 10% that they won't.
Fantastic point.
John Adams defended (and won) the case of the British soldiers who fired "The Shot Heard Around the World"
He then went on to be an integral part in the founding of our nation.
Gorsuch definitely will side with Trump. Looking at his prior ruling to declare almost the entirety of Oklahoma as belonging to an Indian reservation he seems to be a very strict constitutionalist no matter what. I’m most worried about kavanaugh and ACB, don’t know what they’ll do.
I think Thomas and Alito are sure votes. Gorsuch Kavanaugh, and Barret are likely. Roberts is a toss up, probably against. Breyer, Sotmayor and Kagan will be 100% against.
Gorsuch betraying would be near proof that SCOTUS had been threatened.
Conservative justices are happy to burn the Constitution in the name of law and order. The libertarian justice doesn't.
I fully expect someone behind the scenes to threaten every single SCOTUS judge with something if they rule in Texas's favor, especially towards the ones Trump got in.
Let's see if they cower before the court of public opinion....
I would stand before a fair and free court any day. Not the mockery kangaroo shit we have going on today.
why did you post this twice?
Yeah, I'll believe when I see it.
He has already cucked of some things.
The test.. Listen to what people say then see what they do... if they match then trust... if not.....I'll wait to see thanks
Nice passage and I hope he will act as he preaches.
the issue isn't whether they will follow the law or not... the issue is whether or not the deep state is able to apply severe pressure them or not
BINGO
Depends on how much dirt China has on the supreme court...
America needs this win and Big Tech needs to lose 230 as well. We're losing control of the country and need to SCOTUS to reign it back in.
Maybe, but gorsuch disappointed us earlier this year with the transgender case.
He’s still on the naughty list.
That last line though.....
Should be highlighted.
Talk is cheap, we shall soon see what Gorsuch is made of when the rubber meets the road.
Just because Gorsuch wrote this does not mean he will do the right thing.
Look at John Roberts. This Piece of Shit is a puppet for the Clinton / Obama Cabal. They control him and it doesn't help that his name is on flight records to Epstein Island.
We'll see, I'm praying SCOTUS does the right thing, but remember both Gorsucks and Kavanaugh have already let us down. Gorsucks lied, he is not a constitutional originalist.
I'm assuming Kavanaugh and ACB will vote against the President because Texas doesn't have a confession from Biden signed in blood. Only the authoritarians seem to have the ability to stick with their ideology in spite of muh optics
Fuck off, doomer.
This can backfire. We are not sure that we have the law on our side. It's debatable.
We surely have the moral argument, but the legal argument is not so clear cut.
Bro the 4 states getting sued straight up BROKE THE CONSTITUTION. If anything, THEY are trying to appeal to feelings. Just look at the PA Supreme Court's response after Alito forced them to speak for the discrepancies in their state. If law is followed then we win. As simple as that. If law isn't followed then we still win because since they disregarded the law we can do the same and count "mail in electoral college votes".
Bro, I read the whole fucking lawsuit yesterday.
It rests on the assumption that SCOTUS can tell States how they can run their own elections, while the Constitution makes it clear that it's the States the decide the rules.
I took it as states had to follow their state Constitution and amend any changes prior to new laws.
Yes, but who is the guardian and ultimate decider on whether a state has followed its own state constitution?
The state's Supreme Court. The one that rules against us in PA.
The judicial branch does not have the authority to make laws. That's on the legislative branch according to the constitution. Seeing as it's the law of the land, for our contract to be binding, the states have to follow it first and foremost.
But the legislative branch of those states is accepting the results!
This is what fucks us
The PA legislature, e.g., Senator Doug Mastriano, is accepting the results? Holy shit, what the fuck are you talking about?
And even if they were, they're not allowed to openly greenlight a violation of their state's constitution. In doing so, they disenfranchise voters in other states, which is the entire point of the TX lawsuit!
Youre very uninformed my friend.
The PA Supreme Court didn't rule against us. They didn't even take the case. Please don't spread misinformation.
If they cause damage to another state (the did) it becomes a Federal issue.
No, the state's own constitution and legislature is the authority on setting the parameters for choosing electors - so if the PA supreme court rules that the state's secretary of state and governor can override the state constitution (which in PA allows ONLY in person voting and absentee ballots only with valid reasons for voting absentee) and override the legislature, that's what SCOTUS is for - to correct entirely wrong rulings by lower courts / state courts.
Bro, if states cheat they effectively disenfranchise the legitimate will of the people who are citizens of those other states.
THAT'S the meat of the argument, and hence the need for the involvement of the Supreme Court.
Bro, the states didn't cheat according to the lawsuit.
Each state is able to decide its own election rules, including mass mail in ballots and no signature verification. Are you with me so far?
Texas is arguing that the states in question didn't follow their own rules to change the election procedures. But who decides if a state followed its own rules? The state's Supreme Court.
I'm not saying that we have no chance by the way. I'm thinking in terms of 50-50 chances. But believing that the Demonrats will have no argument and will just roll into a ball and call us racist, well, that's making a disservice to our movement. We need to be ready for SCOTUS not going our way.
Bush v. Gore refutes this logic.
Federal Constitutional claims raised by Texas preempt any state constitutional questions of interpretation.
.... You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Be honest: have you read the lawsuit?
No, I’m not with you so far, because you’re not getting specific enough and therefore you’re missing the entire point of the case.
Article II of the Constitution specifically says not just each state, but each state’s legislature must decide the manner of elections. When they mass mandated mail-in ballots, they skirted around the requirement that any election changes have to be passed through the legislature via a law first.
Your argument is flawed because in this instance, the State Supreme Court does not in fact hold more weight than Article II, which specifically mandates what they should have done with regard to mail-in ballots. Yes, the states have final say in how they run their elections — and no, they did not do it properly. Both can be true.
Sure, let’s definitely be ready for every eventuality. I don’t think anyone on this forum is unprepared; we sit here practically every day clamoring for the insurrection act. But just sitting here saying BRO DID U EVEN READ BRO to people on your own team when you have zero understanding of the most basic argument of this lawsuit is really fucking annoying. Please go back and read it again with this in mind. We’ll wait — and welcome you back with open arms once you’ve got it.
What about this? https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PROC_COVID-19_Nov_3_general_election_IMAGE_10-01-2020.pdf
Thank you for the discussion and the kind words at the end. But I don't think you understand my argument, which is the argument that the Demonrats will make.
I get that. But a state legislature can delegate what they do. They are not required to rule on any tiny detail of the election; and we're not talking about tiny details, but still, they can exercise their power by simply sitting back and letting the Governor do rules for them. The fact that state legislatures didn't oppose the rules set up by the election officials, and they are not even contesting the results, it's a strong argument to say the state legislatures did in fact used their authority to accept the changes.
Your second sentence is not completely correct: the US Constitution says that the legislatures direct the manner of the election, it doesn't say that they need to pass legislation.
Imagine a big corporation. The CEO is in charge. But not every decision passes by the CEO, although the CEO can come down and order which water cooler to buy if he wants to. Texas is like a guy outside of the company arguing that the company didn't respect its own internal procedures, so a contract is void because it doesn't have the CEO signature.
Please don't underestimate this argument. This is the argument that the Demonrats brought in a Rudy case in PA. And they won. Yes, the judge was a political hack, but their argument is not weak.
Churchill said: remember that there wouldn't be a war ifvthe other side didn't think they had a chance
Bro...
"didn't follow their own rules" = CHEATING.
It's disenfranchisement, which is why Texas et. al. has a CASE.
Enough with the smooth brain takes. C'mon, man! You make Jeb! look high energy.
The SCOTUS can tell the states how to run a Presidential election. Even though elections are done for many seats at different places, when the rules are set for one day of voting that ends at a specific time, for President, SCOTUS is the only authority between states on this issue.
It CAN have an effect on other races for the sole reason of a compelling case with evidence, if, it’s there. If doubt has been cast in the Presidential election, it will give state processes a point to argue for internal state business on addressing questions about other elections,
I've been saying for weeks that Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act.
The chances of us winning without brute force are being reduced to a low number of probabilities.
Lol go get a clue, the chances of Ttump winning are improving every day He's currently at 110%
The Texas lawsuit doesn't bring this up at all.
Yes, but are the respective legislatures of the 4 states in question saying shit? No they aren't. They have accepted the Demonrats rules, and they have accepted the fraudulent results.
You need to understand this. There is a massive difference between the PA legislature stepping in and rejecting the result (which they certainly have the power to do), and the AG of another state stepping in and telling them what they should have done.
It's like I'm telling you that you shouldn't slap your wife when your wife takes it willingly and enjoys it. A third party can't do shit if the wife doesn't speak out.
I don't think they would rule on a question that was not put to them.
I keep hearing this argument about election ending on election day, but I don't think anyone has put a lawsuit forward for this. Which makes me think it has no merit.
If they didn't say anything, it can be argued that they never agreed to it.
I think the argument is that whether the process was followed for changes to the election. I think this includes votes in 2 seperate sessions etc...
and none of this seemed to happen.
Then why are the pedocrats panicking?
They are panicking because they fear the Constitution is on our side.
How exactly are they panicking?
CNN are panicking:
https://gab.com/NeonRevolt/posts/105356632163175996
If you haven't noticed that the anti-American traitors are panicking, then you haven't been paying attention.
Insurrection Act and arrest him
https://thedonald.win/p/11Qld7gdq3/salt-thread--texas-lawsuit--reee/c/
Some soyboy on Reddit panicking is not the same thing as the Demonrat party panicking.
The soyboys on reddit are pedocrats.
It’s true, unfortunately. This is precedent setting. Anyone who thinks it’s a slam dunk has not been paying attention.