Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Ugh our state is the fucking worst. 

Texas rules. But yeah, the only thing saving us from having the most embarrassing slate of elected leaders is Kentucky. What a bunch of crooks and fools we have representing us. 

Edited by BradInATX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Can someone quickly point out the craziest of the crazy in the TX filing?  I ain’t got time to go through 154 pages of Paxton’s bullshit.

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

This is the most infrequently invoked basis for S.Ct. jurisdiction of them all.  It is usually invoked in water rights or border disputes between states, where the real parties in interest are the states themselves, not some subset of state citizens, or state officials or agencies.

This means the Supreme Court would act as the trial court, ruling in the first instance on the dispute.  

As a threshold matter, I think the State of Texas lacks standing to bring this claim.  The state is not disenfranchised, nor does it have any more than generalized injury by whatever the other states do with their elections.

As far as the rest of it, it's the usual complaints about irregularities throwing the whole election into question.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene, but nothing new.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

This is the most infrequently invoked basis for S.Ct. jurisdiction of them all.  It is usually invoked in water rights or border disputes between states, where the real parties in interest are the states themselves, not some subset of state citizens, or state officials or agencies.

This means the Supreme Court would act as the trial court, ruling in the first instance on the dispute.  

As a threshold matter, I think the State of Texas lacks standing to bring this claim.  The state is not disenfranchised, nor does it have any more than generalized injury by whatever the other states do with their elections.

As far as the rest of it, it's the usual complaints about irregularities throwing the whole election into question.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene, but nothing new.

This -- invoking the original jurisdiction is a clever trick, but I think you have all kinds of problems beyond that, as you noted.

I know people who have litigated such cases.  Typically, you really don't get "in front of" SCOTUS.  They appoint another judge to handle the actual litigation, and then the recommended decision goes up to SCOTUS for action, like a magistrate's recommendation to the district court.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Holy shit, Texans should be beyond embarrassed by this 

I'd talk shit, but I assume Nebraska will join the lawsuit in the next 24 hours. 

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

But, this does allow them to actually introduce evidence at the SC level, right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Texas has lost the right to rip on Oklahoma, Arkansas, etc. what a fucking embarrassment. It’s not some wacko like Powell or Rudy but your fucking state attorney general. What a disgusting tactic to get straight to scotus. If the court rules in favor of Texas it’s time for another civil war and I’m not fucking joking.

Paxton could be angling for some kind of pardon.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This -- invoking the original jurisdiction is a clever trick, but I think you have all kinds of problems beyond that, as you noted.

I know people who have litigated such cases.  Typically, you really don't get "in front of" SCOTUS.  They appoint another judge to handle the actual litigation, and then the recommended decision goes up to SCOTUS for action, like a magistrate's recommendation to the district court.

My understanding as well.  And things move at a glacial pace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._New_Mexico_and_Colorado

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'd talk shit, but I assume Nebraska will join the lawsuit in the next 24 hours. 

But, this does allow them to actually introduce evidence at the SC level, right?  

Not necessarily.  In the usual water rights case, there aren't too many procedural barriers to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In this case, I think there are a number of preliminary questions, namely the ability of the State of Texas to assert "voters rights" claims against other states that may preclude the Supreme Court hearing this at all.

As brisket notes, the usual course of action is that a "special master" is appointed by the Court to take evidence and make a record, and a recommendation as to outcome on which the Court decides.

I don't believe Texas is a proper plaintiff, nor are the defendant states proper defendants.  

I'm not sure the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss from the defendant states on these grounds or appoint a master to do so.  In the event, nothing will happen in a timeframe that would affect the outcome of this election, I don't believe.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not necessarily.  In the usual water rights case, there aren't too many procedural barriers to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In this case, I think there are a number of preliminary questions, namely the ability of the State of Texas to assert "voters rights" claims against other states that may preclude the Supreme Court hearing this at all.

I don't believe Texas is a proper plaintiff, nor are the defendant states proper defendants.  

Speaking of bar complaints, I think this thing deserves some. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The single craziest thing about it is that it invokes the original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate) of the Supreme Court to hear disputes between states.

This is the most infrequently invoked basis for S.Ct. jurisdiction of them all.  It is usually invoked in water rights or border disputes between states, where the real parties in interest are the states themselves, not some subset of state citizens, or state officials or agencies.

This means the Supreme Court would act as the trial court, ruling in the first instance on the dispute.  

As a threshold matter, I think the State of Texas lacks standing to bring this claim.  The state is not disenfranchised, nor does it have any more than generalized injury by whatever the other states do with their elections.

As far as the rest of it, it's the usual complaints about irregularities throwing the whole election into question.  Bullshit of the purest ray serene, but nothing new.

Pennsylvania should promptly make a jury demand.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not necessarily.  In the usual water rights case, there aren't too many procedural barriers to Supreme Court jurisdiction.

In this case, I think there are a number of preliminary questions, namely the ability of the State of Texas to assert "voters rights" claims against other states that may preclude the Supreme Court hearing this at all.

As brisket notes, the usual course of action is that a "special master" is appointed by the Court to take evidence and make a record, and a recommendation as to outcome on which the Court decides.

I don't believe Texas is a proper plaintiff, nor are the defendant states proper defendants.  

I'm not sure the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss from the defendant states on these grounds or appoint a master to do so.  In the event, nothing will happen in a timeframe that would affect the outcome of this election, I don't believe.

When all else fails, RTFM. Or the Supreme Court rules in this case.  As can be seen from the filing, Texas has sought "leave" or permission to file a complaint commencing an action against the other states.

According to Supreme Court Rule 17, the defendants have 60 days in which to file a response in opposition, at which time they would presumably raise the standing issue and all the other reasons the Supreme Court shouldn't take the case.  It would appear that the Court would rule on that before deciding to proceed and appoint the special master referenced above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When all else fails, RTFM. Or the Supreme Court rules in this case.  As can be seen from the filing, Texas has sought "leave" or permission to file a complaint commencing an action against the other states.
According to Supreme Court Rule 17, the defendants have 60 days in which to file a response in opposition, at which time they would presumably raise the standing issue and all the other reasons the Supreme Court shouldn't take the case.  It would appear that the Court would rule on that before deciding to proceed and appoint the special master referenced above.

So PA would have until after the inauguration to respond? Or is there some mechanism by which Texas could request an expedited schedule?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

and, because deadly karma seems to be powerless against this cabal has access to expensive treatments and healthcare the rest of America does not, they'll all be fine.  They'll probably pass it on to others who might die, but they'll be fine.  Cunts. 

fify

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Pardon fishing. By embarrassing the state. 

  

30 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That's not a lawsuit, that's a request for a pardon. 

 

Which of Paxton's crimes are Federal vs State?

 

Edited by TexasEd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

  

 

Which of Paxton's crimes are Federal vs State?

 

Supposedly, he is under investigation by the FBI for his shenanigans with Nate Paul.

I believe federal authorities declined to do anything w/r/to his securities fraud deal, or he got a minor peepee whack from the SEC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

His name is not on a piece of dogshit. I don't feel like that's enough to start sucking his dick just yet.

I mean the guy works for Ken Paxton. Anybody who hasn't resigned from that office in protest is suspect, imo.

 

 

What about the whistle blowers that were fired?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

His name is not on a piece of dogshit. I don't feel like that's enough to start sucking his dick just yet.

I mean the guy works for Ken Paxton. Anybody who hasn't resigned from that office in protest is suspect, imo.

 

 

He's an Edith Jones and Alito clerk, 11 year lawyer.  Total FedSoc hack, smart guy, unqualified to be SG of Texas.

Smart enough, evidently to separate himself from this bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Horndog said:

That's what happens when you release the Kraken. 

 

23 minutes ago, F250 said:

It was that cloud of Covid Ass Gas that Rudy sprayed her way.

 

 

 

When she said "realease the kraken," who knew she meant ol' Rude Dog spewing a cloud Covid infected ass gas in the middle of a legislative hearing?

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dems should have filed suits or requested recounts in TX and FL. I have no doubt that Abbott and DeSantis would have done anything to help Trump including switching votes.
 

Fortunately for democracy, the right states went to Biden. If it had been TX or FL, I guarantee they would help overturn. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Dems should have filed suits or requested recounts in TX and FL. I have no doubt that Abbott and DeSantis would have done anything to help Trump including switching votes.
 

Fortunately for democracy, the right states went to Biden. If it had been TX or FL, I guarantee they would help overturn. 
 

Notice how Democrats didn't contest a thing in North Carolina? A state Trump won by about 75,000 votes?  Less than the margin in PA and Michigan.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...