Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
TEXAS wins either way ... Scotus will rule in Texas favor but if they decided to not then TEXAS is leaving the Union. I don't care what anybody says but this whole suit by Texas is a setup.. Texas is daring Scotus to say the Constitution don't matter so Texas can become it's own country again
IF the Constitution isn't the highest law in the land, then there is no republic and NO UNION!!
The way I see it, if rigger states can disregard the Constitution as they please, then Texas can choose to send 1,000 electors for Trump. Since the law no longer matters.
They could only kick it to a lower court. That's why Texas too it as a state to state issue. Scotus is the first and only court they can go to. Sign in parties get to substantiate their claims as a co-plantiff.
Georgia is being a pussy actually. Instead of taking the power back (which they can do at any time), and voting for the electors as they see fit (trump). Instead they are asking the Supreme Court what to do. It’s a weak and cowardly move.
Lack of courage. It only took 20 states AGs, a sitting president, and hundreds of others to sign on, then they stood up and said , "hey we're here too!"
The glorious state of Texas opened a direct door to SCOTUS constitutionally. They have a fantastic argument that is black and white, is the constitution legally binding or not? This lawsuit also allows every other injured party to intervene with lawsuits of their own to grieve to the court.
The state courts weren't allowing them to submit evidence, and scotus can only hear evidence from the lower case. That's my understanding. Plus they wanted cases that would have the actual effect of overturning, this they need combined. Texas case is the only one where scotus can here direct evidence for the first time. I'm getting this understanding from Steve Turley. Mark Levin is a good one to, but I haven't heard him in a while.
SCOTUS almost never allows the submission of new evidence. One kind of case does, a new origination case, like the kind where a state sues another state and it goes straight to SCOTUS.
The legislatures in PA and GA were saying they don't have the authority to call special sessions, only the governors - which of course won't (whether they can or can't is open for debate).
The trick is not to look at what is or isn't supposed to happen but look at the consequences. If the legislature met up and decided to send electors for Trump, that might violate the state constitution but the question is, in what way does that actually matter? Certainly not to the federal constitution which is silent on the matter.
Now, there might be consequences locally but since nobody is spelling them out, the assumption can only be that there aren't any.
I think a lot of the legislatures are scared for themselves and their families, and understand that one state turning would most likely be the turning point for the true results of the election. So, they hide behind technicalities, and want the courts or congress to make the hard decisions.
As an injured party they can submit their evidence (I believe. Jurisdiction might come in there.) Regardless, it's like an injury without self defense. Court would have to say they need to use their own power, but boom, that's the clarity and judgement their asking for. So...
If scotus punts it's going down to state to get evidence heard. At that point, it gets punted back up. That's where article 3 comes in, and I'm not sure of the specifics, but scotus is the first place that state to state suita can occur. Scotus has had precedence to not see those cases so I've heard BUT that was liberal leaning scotus' this has 5 constitutionalist (not repubs, big difference.)
TLDR I dont think they punt
Correct. It is original jurisdiction. I'm speculating if there was a punt, it would have to go down, and probably have to be split to individual cases in individual courts. That's purely a if/than. I DO NOT think they punt. Too many state have entities that want them to hear it.
I was about to say "never underestimate the court's ability to punt" but given their recent forays into this, and the actual historic nature of the event, perhaps they hear it. Ever since Roberts and Sullivan, I have tossed out preconceived notions of judges big time.
I think Kelly and Parnell case is still floating as well....may be an indicator (similar const questions).
So the jelly case only filed an injunction (auto win) that was never going to fly and I've no idea why they did that. There was some word they might join this. Technically if they get the same result there's no need. That case was odd though... it's big draw was that it was the first to hit scotus. This is all so dizzying to track right now
This is the way. Legislators in every state backing the Texas case need to file in this. The Governors and SOS of the swing states deliberately bypassed the legislatures, so having the actual legislatures sign on and say “yes, what these states did is illegal” is huge. Who else better to attest to the blatant disregard of the constitution, than the state legislatures.
This is in spite of the fact that they just won’t call a damn session.
Same. I called. I emailed. I even spent over an hour on the phone with my local senator who spent most of that time giving me a kindergarten-level lecture on the election process, why signatures couldn't be verified because of secrecy of the vote, and telling me what a wonderful man Brad Raffensperger is.
I couldn't get my local House rep on the phone but emailed multiple times over multiple days and weeks, and got exactly one response.
Democrat legislators would have had a special session without the governors permission because they dont give a fuck. Republicans legislators need to tape into their inner honey badger and get it done.
From what I understand the Texas case is not is not a state issue. The SCOTUS is the appropriate place for state vs state arguments to be heard. The people here who say that SCOTUS will nullify themselves if they nullify the facts presented are correct (I am not an attorney but have extensive experience with regulatory requirements, and I believe the PEDES are correct).
The only way SCOTUS can rule against this is if they want to nullify the Constitution
TEXAS wins either way ... Scotus will rule in Texas favor but if they decided to not then TEXAS is leaving the Union. I don't care what anybody says but this whole suit by Texas is a setup.. Texas is daring Scotus to say the Constitution don't matter so Texas can become it's own country again
IF the Constitution isn't the highest law in the land, then there is no republic and NO UNION!!
Well if they do and the constitution doesn’t matter, we can just take the presidency
The way I see it, if rigger states can disregard the Constitution as they please, then Texas can choose to send 1,000 electors for Trump. Since the law no longer matters.
We should all show up to vote as appointed electors on December 14th. All 80M of us. We can call it reparations 😏
Possession is 9/10ths of the law!!
What it does is nullifies the formation of government at that point. So we'd have two sets of government. Last time that happened...
We have 2 sets of government. Did you mean to say 2 Federal governments?
They could only kick it to a lower court. That's why Texas too it as a state to state issue. Scotus is the first and only court they can go to. Sign in parties get to substantiate their claims as a co-plantiff.
Georgia is being a pussy actually. Instead of taking the power back (which they can do at any time), and voting for the electors as they see fit (trump). Instead they are asking the Supreme Court what to do. It’s a weak and cowardly move.
Why didn't they sign on to their own states cases or even bring their own, instead of waiting until SCOTUS? They were actually the injured party.
Lack of courage. It only took 20 states AGs, a sitting president, and hundreds of others to sign on, then they stood up and said , "hey we're here too!"
Cowards, but at least they are learning to fight, I guess.
Faggotry, that’s why.
The glorious state of Texas opened a direct door to SCOTUS constitutionally. They have a fantastic argument that is black and white, is the constitution legally binding or not? This lawsuit also allows every other injured party to intervene with lawsuits of their own to grieve to the court.
Kemp is fearing for his life.
The state courts weren't allowing them to submit evidence, and scotus can only hear evidence from the lower case. That's my understanding. Plus they wanted cases that would have the actual effect of overturning, this they need combined. Texas case is the only one where scotus can here direct evidence for the first time. I'm getting this understanding from Steve Turley. Mark Levin is a good one to, but I haven't heard him in a while.
SCOTUS almost never allows the submission of new evidence. One kind of case does, a new origination case, like the kind where a state sues another state and it goes straight to SCOTUS.
They’ll ask judge Sullivan to look
I'm curious. Been away most the day. Actually read the ohio AGs statement driving down the freeway... and shitposting. Lots of shitposting...
Well - they could do something about it
The legislatures in PA and GA were saying they don't have the authority to call special sessions, only the governors - which of course won't (whether they can or can't is open for debate).
they were just being cowards. hopefully SCOTUS will give them the little nudge they need to be brave
I wonder that they have quorum.
The trick is not to look at what is or isn't supposed to happen but look at the consequences. If the legislature met up and decided to send electors for Trump, that might violate the state constitution but the question is, in what way does that actually matter? Certainly not to the federal constitution which is silent on the matter.
Now, there might be consequences locally but since nobody is spelling them out, the assumption can only be that there aren't any.
I think a lot of the legislatures are scared for themselves and their families, and understand that one state turning would most likely be the turning point for the true results of the election. So, they hide behind technicalities, and want the courts or congress to make the hard decisions.
Georgia governor won't call the necessary special session.
They don’t need that - they can call the session
They tried and nearly got enough signatures, but the Lt Gov called and some chickened out.
As an injured party they can submit their evidence (I believe. Jurisdiction might come in there.) Regardless, it's like an injury without self defense. Court would have to say they need to use their own power, but boom, that's the clarity and judgement their asking for. So...
Good point. If SCOTUS weasels they may still provide cover for the cowards. Would suck though.
If scotus punts it's going down to state to get evidence heard. At that point, it gets punted back up. That's where article 3 comes in, and I'm not sure of the specifics, but scotus is the first place that state to state suita can occur. Scotus has had precedence to not see those cases so I've heard BUT that was liberal leaning scotus' this has 5 constitutionalist (not repubs, big difference.) TLDR I dont think they punt
Which state would go down to for evidence? I thought this was original jurisdiction, so tx originated, SCOTUS would be in trial court mode.
Correct. It is original jurisdiction. I'm speculating if there was a punt, it would have to go down, and probably have to be split to individual cases in individual courts. That's purely a if/than. I DO NOT think they punt. Too many state have entities that want them to hear it.
I was about to say "never underestimate the court's ability to punt" but given their recent forays into this, and the actual historic nature of the event, perhaps they hear it. Ever since Roberts and Sullivan, I have tossed out preconceived notions of judges big time.
I think Kelly and Parnell case is still floating as well....may be an indicator (similar const questions).
So the jelly case only filed an injunction (auto win) that was never going to fly and I've no idea why they did that. There was some word they might join this. Technically if they get the same result there's no need. That case was odd though... it's big draw was that it was the first to hit scotus. This is all so dizzying to track right now
This is the way. Legislators in every state backing the Texas case need to file in this. The Governors and SOS of the swing states deliberately bypassed the legislatures, so having the actual legislatures sign on and say “yes, what these states did is illegal” is huge. Who else better to attest to the blatant disregard of the constitution, than the state legislatures.
This is in spite of the fact that they just won’t call a damn session.
Nice to see my reps didn’t sign this. Out with the trash they go.
Same. I called. I emailed. I even spent over an hour on the phone with my local senator who spent most of that time giving me a kindergarten-level lecture on the election process, why signatures couldn't be verified because of secrecy of the vote, and telling me what a wonderful man Brad Raffensperger is.
I couldn't get my local House rep on the phone but emailed multiple times over multiple days and weeks, and got exactly one response.
My rep did, and I can’t stand the guy personally, but I have great respect for him for this.
Or call them and make a good argument?
The fence sitters are finally choosing sides as they can see which way the winds of destiny are blowing.
Too bad they didn't have this courage to do this weeks earlier.
Ummm. Better late than never, but still Spineless.
Why weren’t they ripping up the state top to bottom if they saw a problem.
They didn’t need kemp to go into session if there was a state constitutional emergency.
We need new restrictions on what politicians can and can’t invest in while in and immediately after being in office.
Democrat legislators would have had a special session without the governors permission because they dont give a fuck. Republicans legislators need to tape into their inner honey badger and get it done.
Yes, its glorious. Took them long enough, but still glorious nonetheless.
Georgia sec of state is a piece of work. Legislature wasn’t notified of his election changes.
How many are with the GA legislators? What does et al mean?
15 senators, 12 reps
That’s all? We are going to have to be laser-focused on primarying a lot of legislators across the US
Our Lt Gov threatened them 🙄
How? I missed that.
Et al is Latin meaning 'and the rest' often used in legal writ
This seems important LOL.
Where does it say that the GA legislators are in on it?
From what I understand the Texas case is not is not a state issue. The SCOTUS is the appropriate place for state vs state arguments to be heard. The people here who say that SCOTUS will nullify themselves if they nullify the facts presented are correct (I am not an attorney but have extensive experience with regulatory requirements, and I believe the PEDES are correct).
so does this count as dominoes yet?
Where is vernon j9nes?