Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
TellyKNeasuss said:
My non-lawyer interpretation is that Alito and Thomas are saying that the court should hear the case but that the odds of it succeeding are too small to merit issuing any injunctions to halt anything (e.g., the Electoral College vote).
Click to expand...

Correct. It was a technical legal issue.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
My non-lawyer interpretation is that Alito and Thomas are saying that the court should hear the case but that the odds of it succeeding are too small to merit issuing any injunctions to halt anything (e.g., the Electoral College vote).
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
Correct. It was a technical legal issue.
Click to expand...

It's more than that. They are saying they are duty bound to hear any state vs state argument. But even if they heard the case they wouldn't grant any relief to the plaintiffs. Which is saying we have to do this but your case sucks and no way would we rule in your favor.

I've heard some people say there were two dissenters. That is patently false. This was a unanimous decision with notes attached
 
Trebuchet said:
More likely several losing Republican slates will gather on Monday and cast ballots anyhow then submit them to Congress hoping to get them approved. That'll fail as well.
Click to expand...

I hope they get pressured out of doing that rather than pressured into it.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Giuliani did claim fraud in court. Then the judge gently reminded him what that would actually mean, and he changed his mind and said that he wasn't alleging fraud.
Click to expand...
I've seen this claim made repeatedly, but have actually been trying to track down precisely what the consequences of alleging fraud in the suit would have been. Increased burden of proof? Opening Giuliani up to libel charges for a failed suit? Being forced to pay trial costs? Something else?

Can anyone clarify?
 
Shadowdweller said:
I've seen this claim made repeatedly, but have actually been trying to track down precisely what the consequences of alleging fraud in the suit would have been. Increased burden of proof? Opening Giuliani up to libel charges for a failed suit? Being forced to pay trial costs? Something else?

Can anyone clarify?
Click to expand...

(Just my lay opinion.) Alleging fraud would be a whole different case with a lot of evidence required. Just dicking around while fishing for a "friendly" judge was a lot easier.
 
Shadowdweller said:
I've seen this claim made repeatedly, but have actually been trying to track down precisely what the consequences of alleging fraud in the suit would have been. Increased burden of proof? Opening Giuliani up to libel charges for a failed suit? Being forced to pay trial costs? Something else?

Can anyone clarify?
Click to expand...

He could face sanctions. Even be disbarred. A lawyer cannot knowingly present false evidence. So if he's going to make a specific claim of fraud he has a duty to present evidence for it. So what we are seeing is generalized claims.
 
acbytesla said:
It's more than that. They are saying they are duty bound to hear any state vs state argument. But even if they heard the case they wouldn't grant any relief to the plaintiffs. Which is saying we have to do this but your case sucks and no way would we rule in your favor.

I've heard some people say there were two dissenters. That is patently false. This was a unanimous decision with notes attached
Click to expand...

I think it's slightly different than that.

Sometimes, the Supreme Court sends a case down to an appeals court, but says that the plaintiffs are likely to win there, so they will grant what the plaintiffs want in the expectation of an eventual win, even though the case isn't decided. I suspect in rare cases of original jurisdiction, they might do the same thing. They grant the relief the plaintiff asks, in anticipation that the plaintiff will probably win. There weren't saying "your case sucks" so much as saying, "It is not obvious that your case doesn't suck.", which is slightly different.

But, IANAL, so maybe someone with more knowledge would be able to understand things differently.

Either way, Trump lost, again.
 
Meadmaker said:
I think it's slightly different than that.

Sometimes, the Supreme Court sends a case down to an appeals court, but says that the plaintiffs are likely to win there, so they will grant what the plaintiffs want in the expectation of an eventual win, even though the case isn't decided. I suspect in rare cases of original jurisdiction, they might do the same thing. They grant the relief the plaintiff asks, in anticipation that the plaintiff will probably win. There weren't saying "your case sucks" so much as saying, "It is not obvious that your case doesn't suck.", which is slightly different.

But, IANAL, so maybe someone with more knowledge would be able to understand things differently.

Either way, Trump lost, again.
Click to expand...

It's debatable. But Alito said while he believes original jurisdiction requires the court to hear the complaint he would not grant relief. Without relief this case borders on being worthless. There is no mechanism for the court to overturn the EC's vote after they have cast their votes.
 
acbytesla said:
It's debatable. But Alito said while he believes original jurisdiction requires the court to hear the complaint he would not grant relief. Without relief this case borders on being worthless. There is no mechanism for the court to overturn the EC's vote after they have cast their votes.
Click to expand...

It is simply a technicality. Do you deny the motion to file a complaint, or do you grant the motion and deny the complaint? It is just a question of to which thing the denial is applied.

Alito holds the opinion that the only question in a motion to file a complaint is whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (which is does in this case). Therefore, his opinion is that the Court should grant the motion and then deny relief requested in the complaint rather than denying the motion to file.

There is no difference of opinion on the case, only on where the denial should be applied.
 
Russia-gate was nothing more than a short meeting attended by Don Jr, Paul Manafort and other humanitarians to discuss Russian adoptions.

Or at least that was the story until the very next day.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
It is simply a technicality. Do you deny the motion to file a complaint, or do you grant the motion and deny the complaint? It is just a question of to which thing the denial is applied.

Alito holds the opinion that the only question in a motion to file a complaint is whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (which is does in this case). Therefore, his opinion is that the Court should grant the motion and then deny relief requested in the complaint rather than denying the motion to file.

There is no difference of opinion on the case, only on where the denial should be applied.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

In a way, Alito's remarks are more damning than the rest of the court. The court's ruling is that Texas doesn't have standing. Alito/Thomas is saying Texas has automatic standing but their argument doesn't warrant any relief.
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly.

In a way, Alito's remarks are more damning than the rest of the court. The court's ruling is that Texas doesn't have standing. Alito/Thomas is saying Texas has automatic standing but their argument doesn't warrant any relief.
Click to expand...

No. Alito is only saying that the court has jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion to file a complaint should be granted. But if it were granted, he would deny any relief, due perhaps to standing or some other reason.

ETA: Considering that Alito's dissent did not disagree with the issue of standing, it is likely that if the motion to file had been granted he would have denied relief due to standing. But that is just conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Russia-gate was nothing more than a short meeting attended by Don Jr, Paul Manafort and other humanitarians to discuss Russian adoptions.

Or at least that was the story until the very next day.
Click to expand...

Its shameful that Trumpsters pay no mind to an American political campaign soliciting dirt from a foreign entity seeking sanctions relief.

And they they lend a blind eye to Trump attempting to extort campaign help from another foreign entity by threatening to hold back military aid.

What has happened to Republicans? What is so spellbinding about Donny?

I don't get it.
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly.

In a way, Alito's remarks are more damning than the rest of the court. The court's ruling is that Texas doesn't have standing. Alito/Thomas is saying Texas has automatic standing but their argument doesn't warrant any relief.
Click to expand...

DevilsAdvocate said:
No. Alito is only saying that the court has jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion to file a complaint should be granted. But if it were granted, he would deny any relief, due perhaps to standing or some other reason.

ETA: Considering that Alito's dissent did not disagree with the issue of standing, it is likely that if the motion to file had been granted he would have denied relief due to standing. But that is just conjecture.
Click to expand...

I believe you misread my post. I'm not saying anything really different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom