Author Topic: SCOTUS: Texas v PA (Read 2553 times)

PlatinumGuy · « **on:** December 10, 2020, 07:22:49 PM »

The other thread this was discussed in originally got diverted to other topics, and I think with 17 states and 106 congressmen, this lawsuit deserves its own thread.

Other than Donald Trump, is there anybody who thinks Texas should win this lawsuit? Did TX not enact early voting by EO that would render their electors just as inadmissible as they are asking for PA/GA/MI/WI?

While it seems the professionals think SCOTUS won't write opinions on this case and will just dismiss it without comment, I personally think such a significant chunk of the Republic does deserve an actual ruling, no matter how pathetic and unfounded the claims are.

Afrages6 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2020, 08:35:40 PM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on December 10, 2020, 07:22:49 PM

The other thread this was discussed in originally got diverted to other topics, and I think with 17 states and 106 congressmen, this lawsuit deserves its own thread.

Other than Donald Trump, is there anybody who thinks Texas should win this lawsuit? Did TX not enact early voting by EO that would render their electors just as inadmissible as they are asking for PA/GA/MI/WI?

While it seems the professionals think SCOTUS won't write opinions on this case and will just dismiss it without comment, I personally think such a significant chunk of the Republic does deserve an actual ruling, no matter how pathetic and unfounded the claims are.

Could you explain the “should”?

SCOTUS isn’t a political arena and won’t do something special for a lawsuit that shouldn’t receive a look on its merits.

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2020, 09:55:52 PM »

I don't know if I'd agree with that. A court not being political doesn't mean their job isn't to serve the public interest. They should spend the time to articulate their opinion(s) instead of just dismissing a request when a sizable portion of the country ask them for it.

aygart · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2020, 10:00:40 PM »

A full opinion that encompasses all aspects of the case can be "you guys are full of it" and done.

Afrages6 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2020, 11:19:10 PM »

Quote from: aygart on December 10, 2020, 10:00:40 PM

A full opinion that encompasses all aspects of the case can be "you guys are full of it" and done.

But the court also doesn’t want trump destroying it publicly.

aygart · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2020, 11:37:33 PM »

Quote from: Afrages6 on December 10, 2020, 11:19:10 PM

But the court also doesn’t want trump destroying it publicly.

And what can they possibly do to prevent that?

Afrages6 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2020, 11:40:45 PM »

Quote from: aygart on December 10, 2020, 11:37:33 PM

And what can they possibly do to prevent that?

Denying cert is a much easier way out.

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2020, 11:40:55 PM »

Quote from: aygart on December 10, 2020, 11:37:33 PM

And what can they possibly do to prevent that?

Invalidate the electors sent by GA/PA/WI/MI

aygart · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2020, 11:42:41 PM »

Quote from: Afrages6 on December 10, 2020, 11:40:45 PM

Denying cert is a much easier way out.

You really think Trump won't have a tantrum over that?

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2020, 01:40:50 AM »

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337188312893755396?s=21

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2020, 01:42:11 AM »

Quote from: aygart on December 10, 2020, 11:42:41 PM

You really think Trump won't have a tantrum over that?

SC denying the case without comment may actually make it easier for Republicans to attack them

aygart · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2020, 11:14:24 AM »

This would be utterly ridiculous

https://twitter.com/thomaswright08/status/1336877280174419977

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2020, 02:16:41 PM »

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337443032636010508?s=21

‘Attorney for New California & New Nevada’

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2020, 03:21:16 PM »

https://twitter.com/billpascrell/status/1337482904545464325?s=21

Every action has a counter reaction...

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2020, 03:27:32 PM »

Starting to think SCOTUS may actually reprimand some States for their processes even though it won’t offer any remedy

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2020, 03:29:30 PM »

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337394003743010818?s=21

At the same time, the Montana AG filed on brief for the TX side. Purim

aygart · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2020, 03:32:35 PM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on December 11, 2020, 03:29:30 PM

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337394003743010818?s=21

At the same time, the Montana AG filed on brief for the TX side. Purim

With Trump it is a gantz yuhr Purim

aygart · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2020, 03:33:21 PM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on December 11, 2020, 02:16:41 PM

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1337443032636010508?s=21

‘Attorney for New California & New Nevada’

Who are those groups? The ones who want to secede from their respective states?

aygart · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2020, 03:34:12 PM »

Quote from: PlatinumGuy on December 11, 2020, 03:21:16 PM

https://twitter.com/billpascrell/status/1337482904545464325?s=21

Every action has a counter reaction...

This is just as dumb if not dumber than the lawsuit. They are not violating the constitution by filling a frivolous lawsuit.

PlatinumGuy · « **Reply #19 on:** December 12, 2020, 08:56:22 PM »

Quote from: aygart on December 11, 2020, 03:34:12 PM

This is just as dumb if not dumber than the lawsuit. They are not violating the constitution by filling a frivolous lawsuit.

I'm not saying it's smart, but I don't think that's the correct bar. To my knowledge, one can be inadmissible to Congress under the 14th amendment without violating the constitution, the two aren't related.