SCOTUS already had this case as an intervener and dismissed it. Had SCOTUS actually wanted to hear it, they could have dropped all suits but his. They did not and summarily dismissed his suit.
To my understanding, the court has to allow someone to intervene or support in a suit. They dismissed the Texas case; so none of the other states or Trump ever got the chance to join in, even though the filed rewuests to be able to.
No, their judgement was that no state has any business interfering in the election of any other state. Texas was the plaintiff. Trump had filed a motion but because Texas had no standing, the motions were all dismissed.
Honestly, it could come back to haunt us one day if they had ruled that states can interfere in other elections. One state could mandate IDs and other states could sue for "voter suppression".
SCOTUS told us how to win in their statement. It has to be filed by someone with standing. That was the original plan anyways. The Texas thing was exciting but it was never the plan.
“We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B...” Rudy Giuliani said
So does he mean the Texas case, which seemingly came out of nowhere just a few days ago, was plan A? I figured plan A would have been all the individual state challenges his team has been working on.
I think plan B is a figure of speech. i.e. Texas dynamically became plan A because it sounded so promising. But it's pretty clear that what Rudy has been doing the past month is completely separate from that Texas case
Gonna have to step in here and shed some legal light
Rule 24 allowed Trump to file a motion to intervene in the Texas case, which tied Trump to the decision of the court; think of it as a plaintiff-lite. However, doing this doesn’t suddenly imbue Texas with the legal standing of the intervenor, Trump in this case, as he was still only a 3rd party in the suit.
Now that Trump is the lead plaintiff, the SCOTUS will recognize the standing and, due to the proximity of the electoral vote, they will absolutely expedite the hearing.
Wouldn’t be surprised if part of their plan is to have Pence APPROVE the electors in congress to further solidify the real-world damage sustained by Trump.
They normally expedite hearings due to time. Look at the guy they just executed in Indiana. Convicted felon, double murder 1 with aggravating factors, SCOTUS review.
This was my first thought when hearing that Texas doesn’t have “standing”. Ok fine, take the whole lawsuit and ctrl+find ‘State of Texas’ and replace with ‘President Donald J. Trump’ and resubmit. Boom, lick ‘em. I understand it is more complex than that but you get the idea.
“We move immediately, seamlessly, to plan B, which is to bring lawsuits now in each one of the states. We had them ready. They’re just a version of the one that was brought in the Supreme Court. So last night, the president made the decision,” Rudy Giuliani said during an appearance on “War Room: Pandemic.”
Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan, alleging the elections there were run contrary to the Constitution. The nation’s top court rejected the suit late Friday.
Trump’s team is going to file suits or has already filed in the four states as well as Arizona and Nevada. The suits will incorporate allegations in the complaint filed by Texas.
“If the state doesn’t have standing, surely the president of the United States has standing. And certainly the electors in the states have standing. So they will be bringing those very cases right in those courts, starting today,” Giuliani said. “And let’s see what excuse they can try to use to avoid having a hearing on that.”
Courts have been using the matter of standing to dodge facing the facts, he alleged, adding, “Nobody wants to face the reality that this election was stolen.”
The states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Apparently they will have to bounce around each state’s judiciary now. The only reason Texas’s case was able to get fast tracked to SCOTUS is because it was a State v. State lawsuit.
I don't believe that all the great minds working through the legal system to ensure President Trump is inaugurated in January would've put all their eggs in one basket, i.e. relying on the Texas case. I do believe that the fight is far from over - the fight through the courts that is. In as much as I would like to be in the loop of exactly what the "plan" is, I understand that some things (most things) need to be kept close to the vest so that the left cannot figure out ways around while the courts decide to take a case or not. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I don't think I am.
Thank you for the laugh, pede . . . . . . although, sadly, feels possible these days . . . .
“The Texas suit was in Helvetica, New Times Roman is the only font accepted. There is no precedent for Helvetica.”
SCOTUS probably.
Yes, he just needs to refile with him as the plaintiff. Or something like that.
SCOTUS already had this case as an intervener and dismissed it. Had SCOTUS actually wanted to hear it, they could have dropped all suits but his. They did not and summarily dismissed his suit.
SCOTUS SUCTOS
They refused to hear the case because seven Justices agreed that Texas had no standing.
Maybe only three or four Justices will have the audacity to claim that President Trump has no standing either.
To my understanding, the court has to allow someone to intervene or support in a suit. They dismissed the Texas case; so none of the other states or Trump ever got the chance to join in, even though the filed rewuests to be able to.
No, their judgement was that no state has any business interfering in the election of any other state. Texas was the plaintiff. Trump had filed a motion but because Texas had no standing, the motions were all dismissed.
Honestly, it could come back to haunt us one day if they had ruled that states can interfere in other elections. One state could mandate IDs and other states could sue for "voter suppression".
SCOTUS told us how to win in their statement. It has to be filed by someone with standing. That was the original plan anyways. The Texas thing was exciting but it was never the plan.
The UNCONSTITUTIONAL action by those STATES DOES harm every STATE and EVERY PERSON IN EVERY STATE.
SCOTUS SCREWED UP.
Texas was able to skip lower courts because it was State on State.
afaik, Trump can't file directly to SCOTUS.
He would have to sue each of the 4 states and get bounced up through their courts - and he already tried that.
Heres something that confused me
So does he mean the Texas case, which seemingly came out of nowhere just a few days ago, was plan A? I figured plan A would have been all the individual state challenges his team has been working on.
I think plan B is a figure of speech. i.e. Texas dynamically became plan A because it sounded so promising. But it's pretty clear that what Rudy has been doing the past month is completely separate from that Texas case
agreed. he probably just said it like that bc that was the first case that got up to the supreme court
I would say that the Texas case became plan A; while this was probably Plan A before that.
They're going to say he can't bring suit because the electors haven't voted yet so he hasn't suffered any damages.
This needs to be a class action on behalf of the voters.
Yeah . . . and then AFTER December 14th, they'll say "sorry, too late . . . can't undo . . . should have filed sooner" . . .
Gonna have to step in here and shed some legal light
Rule 24 allowed Trump to file a motion to intervene in the Texas case, which tied Trump to the decision of the court; think of it as a plaintiff-lite. However, doing this doesn’t suddenly imbue Texas with the legal standing of the intervenor, Trump in this case, as he was still only a 3rd party in the suit.
Now that Trump is the lead plaintiff, the SCOTUS will recognize the standing and, due to the proximity of the electoral vote, they will absolutely expedite the hearing.
Wouldn’t be surprised if part of their plan is to have Pence APPROVE the electors in congress to further solidify the real-world damage sustained by Trump.
"Hopefully" they'll hear it let alone expedite it.
They normally expedite hearings due to time. Look at the guy they just executed in Indiana. Convicted felon, double murder 1 with aggravating factors, SCOTUS review.
I’m sure Trump will get slated.
Shoot, I'd get in on that.
This was my first thought when hearing that Texas doesn’t have “standing”. Ok fine, take the whole lawsuit and ctrl+find ‘State of Texas’ and replace with ‘President Donald J. Trump’ and resubmit. Boom, lick ‘em. I understand it is more complex than that but you get the idea.
Filed where?
The states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Apparently they will have to bounce around each state’s judiciary now. The only reason Texas’s case was able to get fast tracked to SCOTUS is because it was a State v. State lawsuit.
I'm assuming in their respective states' Supreme courts.
I don't believe that all the great minds working through the legal system to ensure President Trump is inaugurated in January would've put all their eggs in one basket, i.e. relying on the Texas case. I do believe that the fight is far from over - the fight through the courts that is. In as much as I would like to be in the loop of exactly what the "plan" is, I understand that some things (most things) need to be kept close to the vest so that the left cannot figure out ways around while the courts decide to take a case or not. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I don't think I am.
Woot woot
Glad to see this posted - albeit it took SIX times before it got the attention it deserves.
I received a lot of pushback on a post early this morning that I thought realistically outlined the same expectations as this news item.
;)
Thanks, OP!
god bless you, OP
This is what I am waiting for. SC gave him the info. Not saying they are trustworthy or its "plan" it just happened.