The Texas GOP is dropping suggestions of a new Union.
A leader who FIGHTS!
The merit of that argument seems obvious, which is why there was so much excitement behind Texas's case. It appears cowardly or corrupt that they rejected it on lack of standing. There's really no other way to view it, barring some sort of exceptional information we don't have or understand right now.
One of the primary facets to having standing is "Injury in Fact." Saying that a party does not have standing implies that the court does not believe the party has suffered an objective and actual harm that can be remedied. So, it is a bit like saying, "Come on now, you weren't really hurt."
(source) Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.
Trump had an absolute landslide before the handful of states in question mysteriously stopped the counting so they could start up the ballot presses. The entire world knows the next morning's result was a fraud. The evidence is up to Everest's peak.
And it's not over yet. There are still peaceful paths to victory, but you seem to realize that it does not end with the ballot or jury box. Too many people in this country realize what happened and what's at stake. You should be planning how you're going to survive if the courts don't provide a reasoned solution. It's clearly not over at all.
Or not, lol. You really think this is over?
You know nothing, Cloudyfag.
Texas may not have standing, according to SCOTUS, but it will be hard for them to say that Trump does not as well.
It may come to that, but if we believe there is still a peaceful route, we should try that first.
WHEN TRUMP SAYS IT"S OVER. And not a second before.
Can we confirm this some other way?
Half the Republicans wanted this. Fuck them too.
I'm just hoping it is, as it involves less blood. We should let these paths play out before we call it quits on the jury box.
The Texas case was not the only path to victory. It was just the strongest on the Constitutional questions raised. There is still a massive cloud regarding fraud that hasn't been addressed in each state.
Secondly, Trump DOES have standing to raise the issue brought by Texas, and has not yet been able to present it to SCOTUS. So, it's not actually over yet.
Kagan will not vote for the Republic, either. We could see a 6-3 but 5-4 is where the bettors go.
Can we also acknowledge how well constructed and argued both this and the original motion show themselves to be?
We need to flood their STREETS with people roaring for them to do the right thing. We can't just leave this to phone calls and emails.
This is a strategic tweet. Read into the fourth dimension to imagine what he's trying to accomplish, and who it is intended to get talking about it.
That should tell us all EVERYTHING we need to know about the RGA.
There is basically 1 in a quadrillion chance it goes like that. SCOTUS is not going to bypass the Constitutionally preferred method of resolving this scenario, which is to revive each state legislature as each state's first and final arbiter in its own result. They are going to kick the ball back to the legislatures which, happily enough, will give them all the cover they need (despite their cowardice) to determine their elector slates directly.
In such a case, MAGA marchers need to show up and swell the streets in each of those states at the time the legislators meet, and do so in terrifying numbers, so that the representatives understand what is what.
Would it be more accurate to call him ... Manchurian?
It's peak clown world to claim that demanding a fair and Constitutional election, absent fraud and gross irregularity, is a high crime.
P.E.A.K.
That's what this video is: a threat to Biden that she'll roll over unless they give her a lot more chips in the game. I would not be surprised if she was in a completely normal fiery-death car crash soon.
This is not the outcome Flynn was talking about. They didn't push it back to the states; they simply refused to hear it.
That said, Trump can and undoubtedly will make the same Constitutional argument through one or more of the states in question. They'll have a harder time punting, but we should no longer expect SCOTUS to do the right thing.