State of Texas AG files suit on four other states to stop election results

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
Alito and Thomas dissented in that they would allow them to file the suit and THEN toss it.


No idea where you're getting that from.

Alito explained, he would allow Texas to file its lawsuit, but he “would not grant other relief.” Moreover, Alito added, he “express[ed] no view on any other issue” raised in the case.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
No idea where you're getting that from.
It states they would offer no relief. IE: Thomas and Alito would not grant an injunction on the certifications or electors. Without that an injunction the case would be mooted on Monday.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
No idea where you're getting that from.
From the part you didn’t bold, haha.

Alito and Thomas are on record before saying that SCOTUS should hear ANY case brought by the states but they also said here that they would dismiss it otherwise. They were not ambiguous.

Seriously, this is one of the worst and dumbest cases ever to be brought to the Supreme Court.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
It states they would offer no relief. IE: Thomas and Alito would not grant an injunction on the certifications or electors. Without that an injunction the case would be mooted on Monday.

From the part you didn’t bold, haha.

Alito and Thomas are on record before saying that SCOTUS should hear ANY case brought by the states but they also said here that they would dismiss it otherwise. They were not ambiguous.

Seriously, this is one of the worst and dumbest cases ever to be brought to the Supreme Court.

Stating they wouldn't grant any of the prayed for relief isn't the same as saying they'd "find another way to dismiss it." They'd dismiss it in a very specific way (inability to grant relief) assuming none of the states' electors are contested come Monday. Yeah, the reverse is an extreme long shot, but not having the case dismissed would give Republican legislators some excuse and impetus ("We have to object to these electors while there is a SC case pending!") to throw in monkey wrenches. Now, instead of extreme longshot it's near-impossibility.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Stating they wouldn't grant any of the prayed for relief isn't the same as saying they'd "find another way to dismiss it." They'd dismiss it in a specific way assuming none of the states electors are contested come Monday. Yeah, the reverse is an extreme long shot, but not having the case dismissed would give Republican legislators impetus to throw in various monkey wrenches. Now, instead of extreme longshot it's near-impossibility.
Oh come on.

You don’t understand how the American legal system works. That’s why you thought the Supreme Court could rule against new states being added.

I don’t understand how the Canadian legal system works, it’s why I don’t talk about it.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
Oh come on.

You don’t understand how the American legal system works. That’s why you thought the Supreme Court could rule against new states being added.

I don’t understand how the Canadian legal system works, it’s why I don’t talk about it.

Well, I don't think anyone here has a perfect grasp on the electoral college because it's such a labyrinthine and convoluted subject with exceptions to exceptions which in turn have more exceptions, and there many moving parts and theoretical avenues of attack, and some things are the same for all states and other things vary. It's an incredibly complex topic.

So, I try not to say anything with too much certainty. But I know a few things.

I know that it takes one senator and one congressman to trigger a vote in congress for rejecting a states' electors.

I know the VP can flat out reject electoral votes in some scenarios.

I know that if no-one reaches 270 then the house directly elects the President (and the senate elects the VP), but instead of tallying votes per-representative it's tallied per-state (but, paradoxically, still per-senator for the VP iirc).

I don't think it's too much of stretch to say that, in the event that SCOTUS agreed to hear the case but declined to grant any relief in the interim, that Republicans would be working overtime to come up with some combination of factors to throw a wrench in the process with the excuse that "there's still a case in the SC."

I don't like the argument from authority however. If I'm ignorant on a subject in America, or you're ignorant about a Canadian subject, it's not because of where we were born, it's because of what we do or do not know.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I was right. Alito and Thomas dissented.

Eh, kind of. Their dissent says that they believe the rules don't permit SCOTUS latitude to ever deny hearing any case brought under its original jurisdiction. They also said they would not grant any relief the plaintiffs asked for. So yeah, we'd have heard your case then voted against you.

Read the dissent.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Well, I don't think anyone here has a perfect grasp on the electoral college because it's such a labyrinthine and convoluted subject with exceptions to exceptions which in turn have more exceptions, and there many moving parts and theoretical avenues of attack, and some things are the same for all states and other things vary. It's an incredibly complex topic.

So, I try not to say anything with too much certainty. But I know a few things.

I know that it takes one senator and one congressman to trigger a vote in congress for rejecting a states' electors.

I know the VP can flat out reject electoral votes in some scenarios.

I know that if no-one reaches 270 then the house directly elects the President (and the senate elects the VP), but instead of tallying votes per-representative it's tallied per-state (but, paradoxically, still per-senator for the VP iirc).

I don't think it's too much of stretch to say that, in the event that SCOTUS agreed to hear the case but declined to grant any relief in the interim, that Republicans would be working overtime to come up with some combination of factors to throw a wrench in the process with the excuse that "there's still a case in the SC."

I don't like the argument from authority however. If I'm ignorant on a subject in America, or you're ignorant about a Canadian subject, it's not because of where we were born, it's because of what we do or do not know.
No, this is all absurdly wrong. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. They could trigger a vote in Congress but it would 100% fail, for example.

It’s the same thing where you thought the Supreme Court could prevent the creation of new states. You are inserting your personal preferences instead of reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thump553

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
No, this is all absurdly wrong. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. They could trigger a vote in Congress but it would 100% fail, for example.

What's wrong in anything that I just said, exactly? I didn't say that this vote would succeed. It might pass the senate, but it would fail in the house since I believe it's done per-representative and not per-state unlike the fail-to-get-to-270-so-congress-elects-the-president vote. The point wasn't to say that this is a realistic way to overturn the results (although for all I know a split vote between levels of congress might enable some other edge case item to be invoked), but rather to defend against your accusation that I know nothing about the EC.

It’s the same thing where you thought the Supreme Court could prevent the creation of new states. You are inserting your personal preferences instead of reality.

Not new states in general, but a very specific example involving D.C. Good subtle strawman. You're the one taking the absolutist position in that argument, and I cited sources with more authority than either of us have. You didn't do much outside of ad hominem.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
What's wrong in anything that I just said, exactly? I didn't say that this vote would succeed. It might pass the senate, but it would fail in the house since I believe it's done per-representative and not per-state unlike the fail-to-get-to-270-so-congress-elects-the-president vote. The point wasn't to say that this is a realistic way to overturn the results (although for all I know a split vote between levels of congress might enable some other edge case item to be invoked), but rather to defend against your accusation that I know nothing about the EC.



Not new states in general, but a very specific example involving D.C. Good subtle strawman. You're the one taking the absolutist position in that argument, and I cited sources with more authority than either of us have. You didn't do much outside of ad hominem.
Guy, I’m pointing out you have no idea what you’re talking about.

If this makes you feel mad, makes you feel bad, whatever.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
A damn shame, it looks as if Biden may be successful in winning this fraud marred election and becoming an illegitimate president.
For you it can only happen the way you see it. Your emotional needs are simply going to keep you from seeing reality. You believe that Biden is bad and therefore does not deserve to be elected. You have not questioned why you believe your judgment is correct. You can neither prove nor explain why you are right. Just so you know, I tried that and failed and am very glad I did. I did have to experience, however, an really bad amount of pain. It is really awful to find out that everything you believe is good isn't the real good at all. No worries though. Your good can die but the real good can't. It does exist. It doesn't have anything to do with politics or political figures. Those are only mirrors in which we can, if willing, see ourselves. The road to heaven goes right through hell. Sad, but it's how it is. We attached ourselves to phony things because we had to to survive. We don't need those things now. Everything we fear has already happened. Our world ended a long time ago. The way back isn't via change but by awakening.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
A damn shame, it looks as if Biden may be successful in winning this fraud marred election and becoming an illegitimate president.
Well. I'm pretty impressed that the conservative leaning SC, multiple federal courts with judges appointed by all different presidents, including Trump and Dubya, state judges Republican as well, Republican governors, secretaries of state, Republican election officials - all pulled this off in conspiracy with north korea, venezuela and China and the democrats.

Or Trump is lying and your feeble and corrupt mind has melted.

I wonder what's the real deal
 

NWRMidnight

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
3,040
2,652
136
Well, I don't think anyone here has a perfect grasp on the electoral college because it's such a labyrinthine and convoluted subject with exceptions to exceptions which in turn have more exceptions, and there many moving parts and theoretical avenues of attack, and some things are the same for all states and other things vary. It's an incredibly complex topic.

So, I try not to say anything with too much certainty. But I know a few things.

I know that it takes one senator and one congressman to trigger a vote in congress for rejecting a states' electors.

I know the VP can flat out reject electoral votes in some scenarios.

I know that if no-one reaches 270 then the house directly elects the President (and the senate elects the VP), but instead of tallying votes per-representative it's tallied per-state (but, paradoxically, still per-senator for the VP iirc).

I don't think it's too much of stretch to say that, in the event that SCOTUS agreed to hear the case but declined to grant any relief in the interim, that Republicans would be working overtime to come up with some combination of factors to throw a wrench in the process with the excuse that "there's still a case in the SC."

I don't like the argument from authority however. If I'm ignorant on a subject in America, or you're ignorant about a Canadian subject, it's not because of where we were born, it's because of what we do or do not know.
No, the SCOTUS did not agree to hear the case but declined to grant any relief. That was only 2 of the Judges that said that. The other 7 said no such thing. Also, it takes the vote of both the House and the Senate to reject the electoral votes, and since each party controls each branch, that will never happen.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,147
4,847
136
When Trump tore down the ethics oversight committee in his first week in office you should've suspected that he had some grand plans that didn't involve proper or legal behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69