Texas lawsuit shot down by Supreme Court December 11th 2020

a reply to: cosmickat
Hush

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the national judiciary.

If you don't support that, even when they decide something you don't like, then you're not supporting the Constitution.

This isn't overly complex.

Changing voting rules sans state legislators is also not supporting the constitution.


Guess we're all culpable?

Voting rules were not substantially changed.

Further, all 50 States made adjustments amounting to a few days due to a recognized health crisis.

Texas did as well.

They claimed to be damaged by a judiciary acting against the Constitution and state laws, by seeking relief that would act against the Constitution and the law in 50 states.

That's called hypocrisy.

a reply to: Phage

So judges should legislate from the bench?

No argument needed, fine.

Surfs up

Does a lawyer really “agree” or “disagree”?

Their job is to win for the client.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: RazorV66

Nobody is jumping for joy over an absurd, ignorant attempt to overturn a LEGAL election.
We already knew the reality. The deluded folks buying into falsehood doesn’t bring any joy to the sober.

Everything is LEGAL
if you don't get caught

In 2016, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wrote an opinion stating that only the Supreme Court can settle disputes between states.

Apparently they were only joking.

Except this is/was not a dispute between states.

a reply to: JinMI

So judges should legislate from the bench?

The Court did nothing. They simply refused to hear a case which had no merit. The decision has no effect on any law.

a reply to: Arizonaguy
And if I don't...
You gonna take your ball and go home ?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wouldn't be hypocrisy if Texas voting rules were not properly installed and utilized. If not and those votes were thrown out, it would be...fair.


However there's no defense to make that argument because the case won't get heard.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

So what now folks, what’s next on the agenda to keep Trump in the White House?

Lodging an emergency petition for writ of certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court.

twitter post + link to pdf

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI

So judges should legislate from the bench?

The Court did nothing. They simply refused to hear a case which had no merit. The decision has no effect on any law.

Merit or standing?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Oh geez.

Are they going to start chewing their own foot off now?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wouldn't be hypocrisy if Texas voting rules were not properly installed and utilized. If not and those votes were thrown out, it would be...fair.


However there's no defense to make that argument because the case won't get heard.

6

Your assertion is that the four defendents in the failed motion broke their own laws by having courts or members of the executive branch make changes to scheduling?

Is that correct?

a reply to: vonclod

WE are victims! Some democrats, like AOC, are calling
for Trump supporters to be placed on lists and made
to pay for supporting him.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Oh geez.

Are they going to start chewing their own foot off now?

Apparently some Trump followers are glad to fund his tantrums.

Problem is the case their appealing was wrong venue. They would have to go to State court rather than the Georgia SC.

Trump has no special standing in GA that lets him go direclty to the top.

originally posted by: Annee
Does a lawyer really “agree” or “disagree”?

Their job is to win for the client.

Yeah,win by hook or crook!