Trump's Coup d'état.

[BobTheCoward]

That would be almost 1/5 of congress critters (and thus almost 2/5 of Republicans —at least it's nowhere close to a majority but it's still way too high a number of seditious, antidemocratic people in high positions of power).

Going back to whether this is a coup attempt, if by some miracle this process resulted in Trump being officially sworn in on the 20th of January, does anyone here believe that these folk who have been aiding and abetting would say "Sorry, we didn't mean that. This is wrong and should be stopped". Does anyone here believe Trump would say "actually, I didn't really want to be president & this was just a money making scam". That's what it would take for this to not be an attempt.

Or if you want to go to the shooting blanks analogy, when our shooter realizes that one of their shots was not actually a blank, do they shoot again to ensure a kill or do they stop shooting & attempt to succor their victim?

But it wouldn't be a coup. There is a constitutional basis for their argument. Granted, that argument ***** in the mouth of federalism.....but it would be the constitutional process.

 

[Meadmaker]

106 Republican House members file a motion in support of Paxton.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...vania Amicus Brief of 106 Representatives.pdf

Very, very, sad.


There's no way this is anything other than making sure they are not "primaried", which is a very good reason to look at what we could do instead of primaries.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why?
Because Trump is not an adult who understands consequences.
Because Trump most likely has a severe mental disorder.
Because Trump really believes he is destined to win everything he attempts.
Because Trump cannot understand any part of this loss.
Because Trump is floundering and panicking.

Pick as many as you like.

ftfy

His pathologic narcissism diagnosis is supported by overwhelming evidence. Additional complications like is he a sociopath might be less clear but there is plenty of evidence for that diagnosis as well.

 

[cosmicaug]

But it wouldn't be a coup. There is a constitutional basis for their argument. Granted, that argument ***** in the mouth of federalism.....but it would be the constitutional process.

LOL!

I was wondering when someone would come up with that one!

 

[acbytesla]

But it wouldn't be a coup. There is a constitutional basis for their argument. Granted, that argument ***** in the mouth of federalism.....but it would be the constitutional process.

No, in fact there isn't.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, in fact there isn't.

Yes, there is. You disagree with their argument, but it is out there.

 

[acbytesla]

Pennsylvania's response to Texas's suit

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is thatview grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.

Full response (PDF)

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, there is. You disagree with their argument, but it is out there.

I've read most of them. It's crap. It vaguely offers any Constitutional basis.

As Pennsylvania said in it's response.

"Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it."

 

[BobTheCoward]

I've read most of them. It's crap. It vaguely offers any Constitutional basis.

As Pennsylvania said in it's response.

"Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it."

Reading the Pa defense

This section
Texas Fails to State a Constitutional Viola-tion

if I am reading this correctly, PA does not reject that there is a constitutional requirement for state legislatures being required to set election law. They argue that a) they did comply with state law and B) Texas wouldn't have an argument as an equal protection violation.

As a strategy, it does them no good to argue an interpretation of that clause. But they don't argue against it, either.

Setting aside if anyone has standing, if a state did conduct an election not in accordance with state law, what should the court do about it?

 

[Minoosh]

Well this is unfortunate:

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, TEMPROARY RESTRAINING ORDER, OR STAY

ETA: That said, I hope Pa. et al. have the court at "Preliminary Statement."

ETA2: And I'm genuinely curious about whether the SC has ever had a filing that uses the term "bogus."

 

[Minoosh]

It probably has; "bogus" turns out to have been a popular word in 1900 ...

 

[eerok]

More detail on the defendant states' responses to the Texas lawsuit.

‘Seditious abuse of the judicial process’: States reject Texas effort to overturn Biden’s election [politico.com]

Officials from four presidential swing states forcefully criticized an effort by Texas and President Donald Trump to enlist the Supreme Court to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election, with Pennsylvania calling the last-ditch legal effort “seditious” and built on an “absurd” foundation.

 

[cosmicaug]

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is thatview grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.

Full response (PDF)

Not that I understand much of the language, but here's Michigan's response:

Conclusion

Plaintiffs rely on numerous affidavits from election challengers who paint a picture of sinister fraudulent activities occurring both openly in the TCF Center and under the cloak of darkness. The challengers' conclusions are decidedly contradicted by the highly-respected former State Elections Director Christopher Thomas who spent hours and hours at the TCF Center November 3rd and 4th explaining processes to challengers and resolving disputes. Mr. Thomas' account of the November 3rd and 4th events at the TCF Center is consistent with the affidavits of challengers David Jaffe, Donna MacKenzie and Jeffrey Zimmerman, as well as former Detroit City Election Official, now contractor, Daniel Baxter and City of Detroit Corporation Counsel Lawrence Garcia.

Perhaps if Plaintiffs' election challenger affiants had attended the October 29, 2020 walk-through of the TCP Center ballot counting location, questions and concerns could have been answered in advance of Election Day. Regrettably, they did not and therefore, Plaintiffs' affiants did not have a full understanding of the TCF absent ballot tabulation process. No formal challenges were filed. However, sinister, fraudulent motives were ascribed to the process and the City of Detroit. Plaintiffs' interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.

Plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden for the relief sought and for the above mentioned reasons, the Plaintiffs' petition for injunctive relief is DENIED. The Court further finds that no basis exists for the protective order for the reasons identified above. Therefore, that motion is DENIED. Finally, the Court finds that MCL 168.31a governs the audit process. The motion for an independent audit is DENIED.

It is so ordered.

This is not a final order and does not close the case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163437/20201210163842796_City%20of%20Detroit%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

 

[acbytesla]

Reading the Pa defense

This section
Texas Fails to State a Constitutional Viola-tion

if I am reading this correctly, PA does not reject that there is a constitutional requirement for state legislatures being required to set election law. They argue that a) they did comply with state law and B) Texas wouldn't have an argument as an equal protection violation.

As a strategy, it does them no good to argue an interpretation of that clause. But they don't argue against it, either.

Setting aside if anyone has standing, if a state did conduct an election not in accordance with state law, what should the court do about it?

I hate discussing this with you. Hell, any argument ALWAYS devolves into absurdity.

But I'm going against my own warnings to myself and discuss this somewhat. The US Constitution has always left it up to the individual states to run their own elections. We don't have 1 election for President but 50 separate ones. Election laws are different in every single state. And those laws are made by or at the behest of each and every state legislature.

So then what does Article 2 mean when it says the following?

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

Doesn't tell you all that much now does it? Does that mean that each state legislature must decide every bit of minutiae on how to run it's election or can they create an elections department to oversee it? Is the latter really a violation of Article 2? We've since has 230 years of election and legal precedence that says it is not.

And how in God's name is that really an infringement on the Equal Protection clause?

I don't want you to respond, but think about it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I hate discussing this with you. Hell, any argument ALWAYS devolves into absurdity.

But I'm going against my own warnings to myself and discuss this somewhat. The US Constitution has always left it up to the individual states to run their own elections. We don't have 1 election for President but 50 separate ones. Election laws are different in every single state. And those laws are made by or at the behest of each and every state legislature.

So then what does Article 2 mean when it says the following?

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

Doesn't tell you all that much now does it? Does that mean that each state legislature must decide every bit of minutiae on how to run it's election or can they create an elections department to oversee it? Is the latter really a violation of Article 2? We've since has 230 years of election and legal precedence that says it is not.

And how in God's name is that really an infringement on the Equal Protection clause?

I don't want you to respond, but think about it.

I would like to point out that PA side steps that question and the defense puts up the argument that there are already pending cases that are a better fit for taking that up.

And yes, my follow up is on the absurd, but I would love to hear the arguments if it applies to all minutiae or not, and it is a bummer (but good strategy) by PA to not answer it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is a constitutional basis for their argument.

They have claimed that there is one. Whether there is, is not established by the mere fact that the claim has been made.

Dave

 

[cosmicaug]

Very, very, sad.


There's no way this is anything other than making sure they are not "primaried", which is a very good reason to look at what we could do instead of primaries.

Sadly, close to four out of 10 Republicans lending their name to this (with the vast majority of the other 6 out of 10 not speaking out against this) makes it not a fringe group. That the risk of being primaried is perceived as such a problem may be a statement in itself about how this currently represents mainstream Republicanism.

All of this says Trump is not the problem, Trump is a manifestation of the problem. Getting rid of Trump still leaves us with the problem.

 

[acbytesla]

They have claimed that there is one. Whether there is, is not established by the mere fact that the claim has been made.

Dave

I find this suit incredibly ironic. Since it has always been the so called conservatives screaming about State's rights. They in fact used that argument to keep people of color from voting in the South for more than a century. It has been used against both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.

So here we are today with the State of Texas saying the States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia elections laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. WTF? This is the Twilight Zone.

 

[trustbutverify]

Unless the state went to Trump, then the method of voting was fine.

Still fraud for under-counting Trump's winning margin.

Not quite, it is shouting and screaming "fraud" at press conferences but in court literally saying "this is not about fraud". (Oh and also liking those red squiggly lines under important words.)

Point taken.

 

[cosmicaug]

I find this suit incredibly ironic. Since it has always been the so called conservatives screaming about State's rights. They in fact used that argument to keep people of color from voting in the South for more than a century. It has been used against both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.

So here we are today with the State of Texas saying the States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia elections laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. WTF? This is the Twilight Zone.

They liked it before in Bush v. Gore (but the argument there didn't involve different states).

By the way, the invocation of 14th Amendment arguments to say that equal protection is violated by how electoral laws get treated in different states is, if followed to its logical conclusion, both an argument for the abolition of the Electoral College and an argument for the federalization of electoral rules and procedures (which I suppose would require multiple constitutional amendments?). Both would be good things.