The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No. But the country would be in a world of hurt.

What makes you think SCOTUS will consider the case, much less throw out the results of state's elections? Any indications that might happen?

a reply to: Phage

For one, eight States behind the lawsuit now, that should bring it some merit.

-MM

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Fresh Sky Cries Soon.

7 States Join TEXAS Lawsuit to Overturn UNCONSTITUTIONAL Election, ITS HAPPENING

None of those states are on the Texas docket 22O155(letter O not a 0) at: www.supremecourt.gov...

What the Red State AG's did on Tuesday is essentially send Christmas good cheer wishes of support. Means ZIP legally.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

For one, eight States behind the lawsuit now, that should bring it some merit.

No. Not really.
But can you show on the docket where eight states have joined?

a reply to: Phage

The did not want to slow the docketing process by complicating it is my guess. There is no law that says they can´t file their own lawsuits to the US Supreme Court, they might do this as a symbolic way of showing their support.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Can you show where those states have done so?

Can you explain how it matters?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Can you show where those states have done so?

This is breaking news, Phage. You should know that not everything is formalized yet, and it´s just my guess that they´ll make a supporting lawsuit to SCOTUS.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

This is breaking news, Phage. You should know that not everything is formalized yet, and it´s just my guess that they´ll make a supporting lawsuit to SCOTUS.

Saying what? "Wah, we don't like what those states did. Erase their votes!"

That'll work. For sure.
Pennsylvania itself tried to say "cancel our votes" and the Court wouldn't hear it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

This is breaking news, Phage. You should know that not everything is formalized yet, and it´s just my guess that they´ll make a supporting lawsuit to SCOTUS.

Saying what? "Wah, we don't like what those states did. Erase their votes!"

Yes, but perhaps not in your exact wording. The Republic is at stake here.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Pennsylvania itself tried to say "cancel our votes" and the Court wouldn't hear it. None of the nine were interested.

Why? Because there is no merit.
It is a frivolous claim. Just as is Texas'.

a reply to: Phage

Re: twitter.com...

Perhaps a tactic to make Liberals think the court is unbiased and fair.

We'll see what Thursday/Friday brings.

a reply to: carewemust

Yeah.
Sorry, your tweets have no effect.
Not on me, and not on the Court.

originally posted by: yuppa
The TEXAS one is about CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ONLY. No fraud involved.

So was Kelly's from Pennsylvania that just got DENIED by the Supreme Court. You should try to keep on the subject, the petitions are public.

originally posted by: Phage
The trouble is, they want to tell other states what to do. How ludicrous is that?

It's the most horrifying thing certain people can hear, "Hey!! You!! Follow the law!!"

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Means that the case is prioritized above other cases which has not been docketed yet; it jumped the queue in front of lawsuits filed before it which have not been docketed by a clerk yet.

Did you just make that up?

The Court has two main categories of dockets that most cases fall into. The first is the paid docket. This docket contains all the cases where the party has paid the filing fee and printed the petition in booklet format. It includes all paid petitions for certiorari, habeas corpus, and mandamus, as well as jurisdictional statements in cases coming directly from federal district courts. The first petition of the summer recess is numbered 01-1 and everything behind it is numbered sequentially (although a new term begins on the first Monday of October, the Court starts the new numbering at beginning of the summer recess, which Kevin Russell at SCOTUSblog explains in this post).

The Supreme Court is not just considering what Texas has filed, they are now going the next step, which is to say, 'We want a response from the states named,' referring to four battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The four states above have until Thursday at 3 p.m. ET to "actively respond" to election fraud allegations in AG Paxton's bill of complaint. Sekulow noted all the other cases brought before – regardless of their lack of success in courts – are included and germane to Paxton's case, labeled Texas vs. Pennsylvania at the Supreme Court.

www.newsmax.com...

a reply to: Snarl

Evangelicals are funding this and have undue influence in the Texas GOP. Imagine the hypocrisy coming from a strong independent states-right state, like Texas and saying the states in question had no right to conduct the election in the manner they did, mind you in the middle of a national emergency. This doesn't stand a snowball chance in hell = look at the remedy requested: appoint the electors and dismiss the ballots. Whatever, God has Trump's back...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xeven
The states that have (allegedly) joined the suit have already appointed their electors, pretty much.

Obviously you don't understand Constitutional law. The election isn't over until 1/6, and anything can happen - including States de-certifying - until then.

The trouble is, they want to tell other states what to do. How ludicrous is that?

Not ludicrous at all, seeing as the complaints, if true (and they are, as anyone who can read can plainly see), the unlawful actions of these State officials resulted in the disenfranchisement of every single Citizen of these United States. This is precisely why they have standing.