Texas lawsuit shot down by Supreme Court December 11th 2020

originally posted by: carewemust
Time to implement Plan B!

You ain’t gonna do spit.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: smurfy

Notice that no Senate Republicans climbed aboard the SS Texas?

IIRC Cruz (TX) offered to present the case to SCOTUS.

edit / source

www.dallasnews.com...

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz came under political fire Thursday for agreeing to represent President Donald Trump in the Texas-led effort to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, should the Supreme Court hear it.
...
Trump personally asked Cruz, who has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court (most of them as Texas’ solicitor general), to represent him in the election lawsuit, according to The New York Times.

a reply to: ElGoobero

But no amicus brief filed. No petition to intervene.

He knew it wouldn't go anywhere but he pleased Trump. Just like the House members who were on his "nice" list.

CAUTION!!!!!!!
This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Community Announcement re: Decorum
Terms And Conditions Of Use



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.
This could include temporary POSTING BANS.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: DBCowboy
Don't know about brilliant..but amusing at times.

Well, time for war. All of the food producers in the Red states now need to raise the prices of their food and abandon selling to the commodity market that supplies cheap food to the cities. There are laws that govern exports to other states, simply not complying with all the crazy rules makes it so the food cannot be sold out of state. It doesn't mean they have to change anything, just not get the necessary federal paperwork that allows a state to sell their product across state lines.

The import states can import what they need, if they change the laws governing imports. So then anyone anywhere will be able to buy from other countries direct, no need for businesses that import things anymore, that will hurt the big import states, we can order stuff through Texas or buy from Canada if we want the stuff.

There are plenty of ways to crush the Democrat coastal states that want to take away our rights.

a reply to: rickymouse

You do that Ricky. You do that.

What do you think it will accomplish?

a reply to: rickymouse

Literally one truck driving strike.


Governors think they can halt economies?

a reply to: F4guy

Seems like every loaded media article is the proof Biden is winning it.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes here that absolutely falls under national security.
There won't be a nation if people feel elections don't matter.
I will laugh if the media/corporations that are so biased and worked together get hit with some crazy military charges for being in bed with China.
All avenues aren't dead yet.
Even if he is put in office temporarily.

Having said that, people that support Biden to get back at Trump are world class pukes.
His campaign reads like he was taking a dive for Trump.

a reply to: F4guy

I don't disagree. This is a decision for America and it's principles, right and left.

The post to which I responded has a history of intentional misrepresentation and misinformation, such as saying this is a dispute between states. When it clearly isn't.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Was a chance to make history and stand for America, but lawmakers tend to be spineless and complacent. Not a surprise but very disappointing. And very concerning.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Was a chance to make history and stand for America, but lawmakers tend to be spineless and complacent.

SCOTUS are not lawmakers.

a reply to: Klassified

Apparently you haven't been paying attention. It will be far from entertaining.

a reply to: rickymouse

And what happens to all those fly-over states when they don't have the federal money coming in from those coastal states?

Let's not forget that this country has fought a Civil War before. Despite the South's abundant natural resources they still couldn't outlast the North's abundant wealth.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: rickymouse

And what happens to all those fly-over states when they don't have the federal money coming in from those coastal states?

Let's not forget that this country has fought a Civil War before. Despite the South's abundant natural resources they still couldn't outlast the North's abundant wealth.

You really don't understand how the national economy works do you?
Government contracts keep those coastal economies flush with investment capital
This should help...
www.briancmanning.com...
The all powerful government giveth
And the all powerful government taketh away

No problem. California has enough to keep us fed. a reply to: rickymouse

Found this on instapundit.com.



BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Election Lawsuit. “The Supreme Court, 7-2, voted to deny Texas AG Paxton’s motion for leave to file its election complaint. Justices Alito and Thomas would grant Motion for Leave, but provide no other relief.”

The statement that Texas lacks standing would seem to implicitly overrule Massachusetts v. EPA, a case that found expanded standing for states, though in the “Climate Change” context. But then, I’ve told my students that I doubt that case stood for more than climate change hysteria’s ability to influence John Roberts.

The appeal of dismissing on standing grounds, of course, is that the Court won’t have to deal with any of the factual allegations.
6:53 pm by Glenn Reynolds.