The purpose of the post was to point out that no state has actually filled amicus briefs or joined the Texas case in any way, a reality true even as of right now. When people start putting up posts about how 8 or 10 states have joined the TX case, not only is this fake news, but it also serves as suppression because now, people that might have otherwise contacted their AGs, Govs, and Reps may not do it anymore, as they're under the impression that the heavy lifting has already taken place, whereas the reality is nothing has been done.
The purpose of the post was to point out that no state has actually filled amicus briefs or joined the Texas case in any way, a reality true even as of right now. When people start putting up posts about how 8 or 10 states have joined the TX case, not only is this fake news, but it also serves as suppression because now, people that might have otherwise contacted their AGs, Govs, and Reps may not do it anymore, as they're under the impression that the heavy lifting has already taken place, whereas the reality is nothing has been done.
read update 4
I trust Thomas, I think he cares for the republic. I'm surprised, as was Cruz, but let's see.
well Florida's AG hasn't said anything yet to my knowledge. DeSantis was with Trump today, I'm sure they'll do something tomorrow.
yep @ali is BS and West said they something generic about other states should/will join on board.
This gateway pundit article is fake news.
hm. try a different browser?
Alternatively, click on the LA AG's statement: http://agjefflandry.com/Article/10825
and then click on his link to the older case, click on the link that says:
my office joined many other states in filing a legal brief with the United States Supreme Court
updated. Please let me know if I'm missing something, or if I should add something else that will be helpful.
OK got it. Will update.
well the thing is I trust Thomas implicitly. That dude is a fucking saint. So if he votes no, he knows what he's doing. At the same time, Ted Cruz wasn't happy.. so there's that as well. There is still hope, of course, due to the TX case, and a couple of other avenues still available (although they're longshots, perhaps, but stranger things have happened in America history).
Thank you sir, it means a lot.
see update 4
Thank you. I've been distracted for many days. Been listening to a lot of Dr. Peterson, and it's helped me some, but I need to really get back to it and study a lot more, I know that just a few months of studying and I'll be able to switch jobs and double my income. It's just really hard focusing.
OK thank you for the details. Just a couple more questions before i amend the post.
- Can you clarify this a bit, the legal terminology is a bit hazy for me, so if you could maybe reword it:
If the Court grants an administrative stay or other interim relief, but does not summarily resolve this matter in response to the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint, Texas respectfully proposes the following schedule for briefing and argument on the merits:
- Also, once the Defendants’ response brief(s) + their amicus briefs are in, what happens next? In the Mike Kelly case, SCOTUS voted on if they were gonna give the injunction relief. So is that what happens here as well? Is getting to oral arguments guaranteed in either case?
I don't think I lost the sticky, no other posts containing misinformation regarding these topics are being made so I think the message has gone through. Sometimes things start getting out of hand, and I saw that happen today, so I just had to take a break from work and studying, and just do something about it because I couldn't just go to bed and let people live in these falsehoods. I'm grateful to the mods for sticking this and letting the message reach out.
Yes, I firmly believe that they will hear this case, it's just too big, important, and valuable for them to skip out on. It's incredibly well put together.
However, from everything I've read, the way I understand it right now, they will vote to hear this case, after the defendants have submitted their side of the story.
So just needed to clear that and not give false hope to people, to ensure that we still contact our AGs, Govs, reps, and ensure that they word hard to illuminate this case, bring light to it, and pressure SCOTUS to at least hear it.
lol.. all in fun and games -- It's flagged shitpost.
Would love to hear what was wrong, or if I said anything incorrect, because thats precisely what I'm trying to alleviate.
Absolutely call your AG and your GOV and your Reps and let your voice be heard.
SCOTUS can reject prelim injunctive relief and still hear the case - they are just declining to take action before hearing the case.
What Jenna said too, on board with this.
With the Kelly PA case, they applied for emergency prelim injunctive relief which was docketed, but their filing of a petition of writ for cert (the actual case) was pending submission - you can look at the third paragraph here on the document itself - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A98/162573/20201203162739451_Final_Emergency%20Application%20for%20Writ%20of%20Injunction.pdf
I see that.
Just because SCOTUS denied the application for prelim injunctive relief doesn't mean they are declining to hear the case.
This is in line with what Jenna said, agreed here too.
So just tell me this: Will SCOTUS vote to hear this case after Thursday, or, after the defendants have filled their side of the story, SCOTUS will directly be forced to hear arguments?
From what I can tell, they will vote if they wish to hear the case, and that vote hasn't yet taken place. Correct me if I'm wrong.
This is a rep, and while he may be MAGA (I have not vetted him), the AG hasn't done anything yet. However, Trump was with DeSantis just today, I'm sure they'll be on board soon.
Try the link again. This is the older lawsuit that LA AG is talking about.
its not a nothing burger. It's a full out lawsuit, which has merit even on its own. The question is if the other states have balls, or are a buncha RINOs that ask for Trump to campaign for them when they need him, and ditch him when he needs them the most.
The question is, will they #FightForTrump?
yes, updated.
This is incorrect. States can file amicus briefs, but as of right now, no state has done so. It's all talk and no action.
Ted Cruz is disappointed, yes, that the injunction was not given, and I pointed that out. However, if you would read the final update and the thread in it's entirety, you would realize that the Mike Kelly lawsuit is still pending, for they haven't filled their case yet, they only filled the request for an injunction which was denied. This is exactly what Jenna Ellis was referring to, and is why the case is actually still pending in SCOTUS.