We're waaaaay ahead of you, Lin.
Can we do this even if it will clearly be rejected? The press, good and bad, will zoom us up another 100 ranks on Alexa.
The Legislature can also call it without the Governor if they can get enough members to support the session.
Apparently they remark in their briefs that they wish to be added if/when SCOTUS agrees to hear the original motion. So, this is somewhat pre-emptive. I'm not sure if it's atypical, but that's possible.
Okay, makes sense that this is done a bit "pre-emptive" because it adds more front-side pressure on SCOTUS.
Nah, they knew that much fraud would be noticed and cause some problem, but they believed too much in the power of their propaganda and the censor enforcers.
The Democratic party should be outlawed for their crimes during this election and before. Party staff and officials should never be permitted to work in politics again, if they aren't investigated and jailed for their betrayals of the American people.
If they're shocked now, they haven't seen anything yet. All the dominoes are falling.
Gina Haspel was shot in Frankfurt ~11-6 while trying to destroy evidence, but is helping Trump to avoid execution
Wait, what? Is this a supposition based on any public event? Or more direct information?
My understanding, perhaps erroneous, is that states could not file motions to intervene until SCOTUS agreed to hear Texas's underlying motion, which is why they all entered as AC initially.
I'm presuming that SCOTUS has received the requested reply from the four defendant states and has thereafter agreed to hear it, motivating some states to now make motions to intervene. But again, I could be wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that states were waiting to file these motions until SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Is that, therefore, the current status of the original Texas motion? It's going to be heard?
That article and its author are an embarrassment. No surprise!
Gaming is a massive cultural intersection. SJWs naturally want to invade the space as a result.
LOLOlololOLlloLOLLOL
Parnell's frustration is understandable, but there are two important factors at play.
First, certification isn't the end-all where the Supreme Court is concerned. To them, it is not a protected status and can be dealt with later, if necessary.
Second, the Texas motion is much more substantial in terms of scope and impact than Parnell's, which is notable on its own. The Supremes are prioritizing and Parnell's case is simply not as high up the totem pole. The fact that they've put him on hold for the Texas motion could be an indication that they expect his case may be resolved when Texas's is as well. (Note: That's a tremendously good sign for us.)
So, the short answer is that the Supremes know what they're doing and have some pretty good reasons for it.
Does it seem more compelling to you that 18 states have a dispute with 4? Or when it was just Texas? Well, it also seems that way for members of the Supreme Court, moreso because they are the avenue by which states can resolve disputes at all.
So many states piling on is also piling on the pressure for them to not fuck over so many disenfranchised people. Everyone knows the election was a theft, even the Supremes. It's hard for them to make a decision palatable to the establishment with so many disenfranchised states involved.
They didn't reject it. They denied the request for an emergency injunction to prevent certification.
Not hard to imagine Trump giving his endorsement to the nimble navigator who argued the Supremes into saving the Republic.
Just crick on offer!
I've got one answer most people won't like.
We need to show up in Million Maga March numbers around each of the traitor states' legislative buildings to let them wonder if they'll get out alive by voting against the truth.
Those pictures are the same.
Those don't have the built in audiences of the commie platforms, for now.
Pro-tip: He won't.