Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
I don't think that a Presidential Pardon would help him get out of his crimes against his State.
Click to expand...

It seems Federal investigators may be involved. All in all, Paxton seems to be a thoroughly disagreeable and self-serving POS. Not surprising considering he's a Trump sycophant:

Federal authorities have declined to say whether they are investigating Paxton, and the Texas Rangers said they referred complaints against Paxton to the FBI. But legal experts say it’s all but certain federal authorities are vetting the accusations against Paxton.

It would be “highly unusual” for federal authorities not to investigate, given the seriousness of the allegations and the presumed credibility of the accusers, said Edward Loya, a Dallas attorney and former prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice who handled public corruption investigations.
Click to expand...
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/11/texas-ag-ken-paxton-criminal-allegations/
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Yeah. Isn't Paxton out of the federal charges and down to state charges. If so, that means he didn't file this meritless claim to get a pardon, but just because he is a jerk.
Click to expand...



Well, you have consider: we may not know what other Federal crimes he committed, but he certainly does. A blanket federal pardon while being actively investigated might still be worthwhile, if his state-level crimes aren't as bad as the federal-level ones.
 
Tero said:
Link, please.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Dec 08 2020:
Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
Click to expand...

Anyway, as you said, no standing, and, to use legalese adapted to these GOP court things, utter truther level nonsense.
 
Firestone said:
SCOTUS Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

Anyway, as you said, no standing, and, to use legalese adapted to these GOP court things, utter truther level nonsense.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about the other states. I do not believe any states were contacted and this is strictly a matter between Texas and the court.

Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.
Click to expand...

A news source also states that a response was required, but wrongly lists the states.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/09/supreme-court-orders-reply-texas-election-lawsuit/

The states have no need to respond to this, only the court.

I see some statements on Twitter that all seem to think the states need to respond. But if the court was not going to hear the case, why would they make the states respond? A state's response could make them take up the case, but there is no indication the states have to respond. The court cannot make those states respond. If they respond, the deadline is clearly set. But I doubt very much anything at all will appear by Thursday.
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
It says nothing about the other states. I do not believe any states were contacted and this is strictly a matter between Texas and the court.



A news source also states that a response was required, but wrongly lists the states.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/09/supreme-court-orders-reply-texas-election-lawsuit/

The states have no need to respond to this, only the court.

I see some statements on Twitter that all seem to think the states need to respond. But if the court was not going to hear the case, why would they make the states respond? A state's response could make them take up the case, but there is no indication the states have to respond. The court cannot make those states respond. If they respond, the deadline is clearly set. But I doubt very much anything at all will appear by Thursday.
Click to expand...

You think the four attacked states will not even respond and just rely on SCOTUS to dismiss the nonsense suit? Quite possible.

The way I read the notice on the Docket is that responses (also by the defendant states) can be given until 3pm tomorrow. But that's definitely not a hill I'm ready to die on. :)
 
The link you gave does give the pdf of all the filings. I just do not see a way of enforcing any of this. The fights between states would take all the time of the Supreme Court if they got involved in every land and water issue. If there are federal lands that cross state lines possibly then.
 
Tero said:
It says nothing about the other states. I do not believe any states were contacted and this is strictly a matter between Texas and the court.



A news source also states that a response was required, but wrongly lists the states.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/09/supreme-court-orders-reply-texas-election-lawsuit/

The states have no need to respond to this, only the court.

I see some statements on Twitter that all seem to think the states need to respond. But if the court was not going to hear the case, why would they make the states respond? A state's response could make them take up the case, but there is no indication the states have to respond. The court cannot make those states respond. If they respond, the deadline is clearly set. But I doubt very much anything at all will appear by Thursday.
Click to expand...

There seems to be no real debate in the lawyer threads I've looked at whether they will grant leave to Texas. But only if it will be unanimously denied. There is a an argument over whether the Court has to hear all suits between States or not. Alito strongly believes they have to. Thomas echoes that opinion but frankly, Thomas never actually seems to have a mind of his own. But even if they granted leave, it would be to dismiss the case.

So the question really is, will they deny leave 9 - 0 or 7 with 2 dissents.

As much as Alito thinks principally that the Court should hear all State vs State cases, he might be considering whether this is the right case to push that idea.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
....
As much as Alito thinks principally that the Court should hear all State vs State cases, he might be considering whether this is the right case to push that idea.
Click to expand...

Seems like there would have to be at least some legal basis for the claim. If you start arguing that anything one state does is actionable because it might affect other states, you could have California suing all the other states for not meeting their clean air standards, New York suing South Dakota for the way they run their meat-packing plants, etc., etc. How could you even adjudicate such cases?
 
This "your votes in your illegal states hurt my Texas vote" makes about as much sense as the "your gay marriage hurts my Christian hetero marriage."
 
On another web site's forum, someone made the point that the recent SCOTUS decision about PA (from Mike Kelly) only denied emergency injunctive relief, so that case is still pending before SCOTUS.

1. Is that an accurate reading legally?

2. Is it moot anyway given that we are after the Safe Harbour deadline?
 
Paul2 said:
On another web site's forum, someone made the point that the recent SCOTUS decision about PA (from Mike Kelly) only denied emergency injunctive relief, so that case is still pending before SCOTUS.

1. Is that an accurate reading legally?

2. Is it moot anyway given that we are after the Safe Harbour deadline?
Click to expand...

definitely moot.
 
Bob001 said:
Seems like there would have to be at least some legal basis for the claim. If you start arguing that anything one state does is actionable because it might affect other states, you could have California suing all the other states for not meeting their clean air standards, New York suing South Dakota for the way they run their meat-packing plants, etc., etc. How could you even adjudicate such cases?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you nor does I think the majority of the court.
 
Bob001 said:
Seems like there would have to be at least some legal basis for the claim. If you start arguing that anything one state does is actionable because it might affect other states, you could have California suing all the other states for not meeting their clean air standards, New York suing South Dakota for the way they run their meat-packing plants, etc., etc. How could you even adjudicate such cases?
Click to expand...

Heck, California could make the same claim as Texas that California's votes are more diluted than other states.
 
1. I agree with the earlier suspicion that someone admitted that these cases are more about loyalty test then actually succeeding in court. Trump, and whatever inner circle / sycophantic toadies in Congress/State Governments are trying to figure out how high Trump's 3 nominees are going to jump when Trump tells them to and it looks like the answer is "Not as high as he wants."

2. Like I've said at this point SCOTUS can't make their "The states run their elections. Unless they break actual Federal election laws we are not going to overturn or even look at any of their results based on questions of nitpicking procedural compliance" any cleare.

3. More so than even the other top levels of government, I get the impression that SCOTUS as a legal entity has a deep seated resentment toward having its time wasted and "Ask them a question they have already definitely answered" seems to be something they take rather personally.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom