Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
SO, basically, the Court tells Trump to take a hike.
Not surprised.
I do nonto agrree with the politics of the SC court conservatives, and will give them hell on some of the decisions they make, but I don;t think they are evil facists.
Click to expand...

No, they are evil fascists, but they are smart enough to follow the old dictum, "You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once." If there was a actual legal question or questions that would determine the outcome of the election, they would vote for Trump in a heartbeat. But this ball of unverifiable fraud nonsense and a legal argument that the Supreme Court should throw out an election if Republicans disagree with the outcome is a bridge too far. They know that ruling in favor of Trump in a case like that would rob them of any apparent legitimacy, and quite quickly, any relevance.
 
turingtest said:
Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this.
Click to expand...

Yep. I noted that, too. None of his appointees had anything to say. Even the 2 "dissents" were Alito/Thomas (and they weren't really dissenting on the merits)
 
eerok said:
Good enough :)

I think it's important to say things like this out loud.
Click to expand...

I get it. I agree with your sentiment.

This suit like so many others were crap. It's ridiculous that any of these cases saw the inside of a courtroom let alone being considered to some degree by the highest court in the land.

Monday the Electoral College convenes.
 
pgwenthold said:
In other words, Texas hasn't made a claim that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the claim as it is that they failed to prove they were damaged in some way that justifies their right to sue another state. That is they failed to prove standing. Texas also requested extraordinary relief that was never going to be granted.

Alito and Thomas basically said you have standing as that is guaranteed in their reading of the Constitution. That said, even though we feel you are entitled to argue your case, we wouldn't have granted you the temporary relief you sought.

I also see the court not only denied their request for leave to file on standing but on the fact that the case is moot.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
... The only question what was Barrett going to do, and she went with the others.
Click to expand...
I don't know why anyone thinks the Stepford Wife religious fanatic has shown any tendency toward being a Trump sycophant.

OTOH, I'm not so sure about Rapey McRapeface.
 
cosmicaug said:
More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45.

https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/status/1337549111155953664
Click to expand...

"Texas GOP chair says in light of Supreme Court tossing out Texas case, "Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

The gentleman in my avatar wants to remind the Texas GOP chairman of how it turned out last time Texas and it's fellow Confederate States tried that.....

And I can see the Ghost of Abraham Lincoln doing a Ghost Of Christmas Yet To Come on this moron; I am sure Old Abe does not like the idea of a republican state chairman advocating secession...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't know why anyone thinks the Stepford Wife religious fanatic has shown any tendency toward being a Trump sycophant.

OTOH, I'm not so sure about Rapey McRapeface.
Click to expand...

It's not that. It's about the whole "does the court have to hear any case brought before it by the states." Alito and Thomas have a history where they say yes. Kavanaugh has actually been faced with the situation and has said no. Barrett does not have any judicial history on the question, so it was not clear what direction she would go.

It's not about being a Trump sycophant, it's about that jurisdictional question.
 
��
How deep is your state
How deep is your state
I really mean to learn

SCOTUS, Barr, PA Supremes, WI Supremes, GA Supremes, AZ Supremes, NV Supremes, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Gov Kemp, Geraldo (who Trump has ghosted)
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
It's not that. It's about the whole "does the court have to hear any case brought before it by the states." Alito and Thomas have a history where they say yes. Kavanaugh has actually been faced with the situation and has said no. Barrett does not have any judicial history on the question, so it was not clear what direction she would go.

It's not about being a Trump sycophant, it's about that jurisdictional question.
Click to expand...

I see. :)
 
acbytesla said:
I also see the court not only denied their request for leave to file on standing but on the fact that the case is moot.
Click to expand...

No. They are saying that the other pending motions are moot. All those motions to intervene and motions to file an amicus brief. Those pending motions are moot because the Court isn't going to hear the case.
 
acbytesla said:
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would thereforegrant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
Click to expand...

That is what I expected. I thought they might write a longer opinion on why Texas doesn't have standing, but a terse denial is not unexpected.
 
What is Donald's next move?

What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot.

SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him.

Is he going to concede or continue this silly game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom