Let’s not use “people like you” after reading one comment.

I’m getting real tired of all the posts like this. Not one single person is going to be ideologically perfect. We are Americans who allow free thought. We need to appreciate those that fight. She has fought hard.

He probably thought it was his Profiles in Courage moment, what a loser.

Why? Other than them trying to hide something, why would they not want to comply?

I'm genuinely asking the question, since very rarely are issues black and white. Do they have any other reason, however stupid or obscure, to not comply?

Its because that is what Republicans have always done. Even Regan went along with amnesty.

Its one of the big differences between Conservatives and American Liberals. Conservatives, by default, want to keep things calm, orderly, and "normal" while the American Liberal only wants change. Unfortunately, pretty much all change is always in a direction away from our Nation's founding.

Trump is the first Republican, if you can call him that, who is willing to throw away those calm, orderly, "normal" shackles and go to the fight, even if it is in the muck-filled sewers of the Establishment Swamp.

Federal Law correct?

I've been thinking the same thing for several weeks now. If they really think we're so evil, why do they want to live with us?

Sticky this. We all need to see this.

They would just print money. Or China would finance their government.

Same docket number, 155

Is this one of those situations where only part of the Texas suit is rejected?

It is from https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/20

first link

I'm not a lawyer, but this doesn't look good.

126 Actually!

This may just be a commentary on National Review running a story like this. This was a statement by the entire Editorial Staff.

If Texas hasn't seceded by then, that'll be the last straw.

Doesn’t Kentucky have a Dem Governor? I doubt the governor would be okay with his AG signing onto the suit. In fact, maybe the Governor is pushing to support the other side and Cameron is saying no.

Any argument saying SCOTUS should not take up this case is just absurd. Look at how many States are now involved.

It's still not the PA reply. Read the BOLDED text on the first page.

This isn't PAs response. This is a filing of CARTER PHILLIPS, STUART GERSON, JOHN DANFORTH, CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, LOWELL WEICKER, ET AL., AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS.

An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural: amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case.

When the Supreme Court rules that the state ran an illegal election those legislators will have political cover to change their tunes.

That was my thought as well, but I just saw this argument on a website that should not be named and was curious what we thought about it here.

Since the winner must have a Majority of total Electors appointed, 270 of 538. I just want to make sure that if 62 EV aren't appointed that the denominator still is 538 and doesn't turn into 538 - 62 = 476.

Have you read anything about this theory?

I'd like to have a genuine discussion on this as I don't hear any pundits talking about it.

Since the winner must have a Majority of total Electors appointed, 270 of 538. I just want to make sure that if 62 EV aren't appointed that the denominator still is 538 and doesn't turn into 538 - 62 = 476.

https://i.imgur.com/6Z9tv5d.png

The New Republic.