With the new-found clarity that approximately 45% of the country opposes democracy, including party leadership, that doesn't bode well for the future.
Trump's Coup d'état.
- Thread starter Mader Levap
- Start date
- Status
Interesting Twitter thread from a Texas Law Prof on this case: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1336329901859688451
tl;dr?
His conclusion:
"All of this is to say, yes, #SCOTUS *can* hear this case. And it's possible one or two Justices will think that it *should.*
But it's going to take forever to decide whether to hear it—which almost certainly means that the whole thing will be moot before that happens."
Only have had very quick skim but they are seemingly repeating stuff that has already been decided on by various courts. They don’t seem to be arguing why the SC would have jurisdiction or Texas have standing for this filing?
ETA: Surely the 11th amendment makes this type of filing void?
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,941
Where are the self-declared Federalists on this?
Since when are they cool with one State telling the other States how they have to decide on how to hold elections?
I have yet to see one Trump supporter who wouldn't toss his lifelong ideology overboard the second it contradicts with Hair Furor.
Since when are they cool with one State telling the other States how they have to decide on how to hold elections?
I have yet to see one Trump supporter who wouldn't toss his lifelong ideology overboard the second it contradicts with Hair Furor.
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
Perhaps Operation:Confound might appeal to you, then. Some of us have started a little dis-info campaign by saying something like "Sorry, guys, but this Patriot is staying home for the Georgia run-off on Jan. 5th!" or "What's the use!! They'll ALL friggin' corrupt! If Trump isn't involved I'm staying home!"
That way you really don't have to interact with them in the comments. The trick is not to overdo it. Don't go too OTT. Just a little nudge. Maybe 2 or 3 times a day? You only need to do it until Jan. 5.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
What worries me is that there may be no attempt being made to establish the merits of the case, just an attempt to bring a case before the SCOTUS which they've already decided to judge in Trump's favour; in other words, that the SCOTUS, or at least the majority of its Justices, may decide to join in with the coup by sort-circuiting normal procedure, hearing the case immediately, ignoring the law and the evidence and ruling on the basis of political bias. Is that possible?
Dave
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
Even though SCOTUS slants right, I don't see what they have to gain by making a dog's breakfast out of American electoral process. It defies reason why they'd reject the clear outcome of the election. At most, a few would have stupid things to say about changing procedures to account for a pandemic, but I can't see why that would amount to anything.
Yeah luckily SCOTUS has been remarkably consistent in their opinion of "States decided how their elections go, now please stop asking us."
But I'm not sure to what degree that matters since this I don't think this lawsuit actually going anywhere is the point, just sewing more distrust of the democratic process very much is the point.
But I'm not sure to what degree that matters since this I don't think this lawsuit actually going anywhere is the point, just sewing more distrust of the democratic process very much is the point.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
My bet is in Michigan. They seem to be likely to go for the governor or secretary of state there.
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/07/943820889/michigan-secretary-of-state-says-armed-protesters-descended-on-her-home-saturday
Shouting fire hell, they are sitting the building ablaze themselves.
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
Even if it were possible, I doubt the SCOTUS would want that sort of a headache.
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
I'm more concerned about the possible suicides* because their perceived world is coming to an end.
*which may include other family members.
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
I know! Who would want their loved ones to live in a Hugo Chavez inspired, Biden ruled communist hellhole?
Politicians of all stripes are often frustrating because Court Decisions very rarely declare "This side is the winner" in the way they seem to want them to.
Law, especially high law, is all about super-precision and technicality applied to the spirit of an original legal idea.
Politics is all about the sell, the narrative, the image.
And when "Legaleze" tries to have a conversation with "Realpolitik" it's like the Darmok episode of Star Trek.
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,792
I think that the SC would have jurisdiction because it's a dispute between states.
Which goes back to my belief that most of the lawsuits are not filed with the intention of winning, or even going to a full hearing, but instead are filed to give the impression that something must be fishy or else there wouldn't be so many lawsuits. This has been a Republican strategy going back at least to the Clinton years: create suspicion through the simple volume of the charges even if there is nothing to support any of the charges.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
I am, at this point, convinced that "voter fraud" is nothing more or less than a dog whistle for "non-white voters".
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
The TX lawsuit has the same vulnerability to laches as many of the other failed lawsuits challenging this election.
If there was some problem with the way these states planned to allow mail in voting, there was adequate time to launch a legal challenge before millions of people cast their ballots. Waiting until the 11th hour and asking to have huge swaths of people disenfranchised isn't a reasonable request, even if, for the sake of argument only, they actually had an underlying point about how the election was conducted.
My hunch is that this doesn't get granted cert by the SCOTUS and that's that.
If there was some problem with the way these states planned to allow mail in voting, there was adequate time to launch a legal challenge before millions of people cast their ballots. Waiting until the 11th hour and asking to have huge swaths of people disenfranchised isn't a reasonable request, even if, for the sake of argument only, they actually had an underlying point about how the election was conducted.
My hunch is that this doesn't get granted cert by the SCOTUS and that's that.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,592
Wouldn't it be nice if the Trump supporters in here that are quietly lurking would finally come out and just admit that Trump lost the election? Instead, they just stopped defending his actions and aren't posting at all.
- Status