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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Lol at Trump torpedoing the lawsuit trying to help him. The entire reason they are going straight to the Supreme Court is because it's a controversy between states that can't be resolved any other way. If the federal government can intervene then it's no longer exclusively a controversy between states and thus has to use the normal federal courts.

Also the lawsuit is insane on its face.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,937
9,220
136
Just imagine the precedent this case would set if SCOTUS decided in Texas’ favor. I’d almost be willing to endure four more years of Trump just to see every single blue state sue every single red state (for all the pseudo Jim Crow shit they’ve pulled after Shelby) after every federal election. Blue states have the tax money to fund lawsuits. What do red states have—a handful of wealthy Federalist patrons?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and dawp

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Just imagine the precedent this case would set if SCOTUS decided in Texas’ favor. I’d almost be willing to endure four more years of Trump just to see every single blue state sue every single red state (for all the pseudo Jim Crow shit they’ve pulled after Shelby) after every federal election. Blue states have the tax money to fund lawsuits. What do red states have—a handful of wealthy Federalist patrons?
No need to wait until after the election, this theory would apply to all sorts of laws and would set off a blizzard of litigation across the country. California doesn't like Texas' environmental laws? Sue them! Basically this would be open season on states suing each other to try and force each other to adopt laws contrary to what their legislatures have passed.

And yes, it is amusing that the 'states' rights, small government conservative' party is attempting to use the federal government to override state laws. This is of course because they were lying the whole time and never believed in any of that.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
It's a 15 page thread, people miss stuff.
it's a 15 page thread that is appropriate for all this stuff but we'd rather have confused balkanized discussions ranging over 10 threads instead of being able to go to and follow one of them.

every time i come here i can feel my attention span dropping because instead of one "trump election lawsuit and maintaining stance of dominance thread" where everyone knows to go and discuss this and all the other shit being pulled, there's 15 of them.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,732
28,908
136
It doesn't matter. None saw fit to offer written dissent.
Here's why it could havr mattered.

Let's say they took a role call vote and it was 5-4. Even though Texas still lost, the fact conservative judges even entertained this ridiculous case would be a predicate for Biden to expand the court.

I think Roberts knows this so it was dismissed under cover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
I will add: probability of success on the merits is a key element in a request for an injunction. If your injunction is denied 9-0, it means the court thinks you have no chance to succeed in the underlying case.

That is true here looking at the case. There are other reasons (e.g. no irreparable injury to plaintiff, granting the injunction causes too much injury to the other side, the proposed injunctive relief is excessive for what would be needed to prevent irreparable injury) an injunction may be denied. However, with just a one-sentence denial, I can hardly imagine any of those were a principal reason for the denial.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Here's why it could havr mattered.

Let's say they took a role call vote and it was 5-4. Even though Texas still lost, the fact conservative judges even entertained this ridiculous case would be a predicate for Biden to expand the court.

I think Roberts knows this so it was dismissed under cover.

That's speculation of the conspiracy theory variety. I'm confident Paxton's suit will meet the same sort of end as the recent PA scam that was just snuffed w/o comment. It's a press release, red meat for the faithful, not a good faith lawsuit at all. Flooding the zone with shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
No need to wait until after the election, this theory would apply to all sorts of laws and would set off a blizzard of litigation across the country. California doesn't like Texas' environmental laws? Sue them! Basically this would be open season on states suing each other to try and force each other to adopt laws contrary to what their legislatures have passed.

And yes, it is amusing that the 'states' rights, small government conservative' party is attempting to use the federal government to override state laws. This is of course because they were lying the whole time and never believed in any of that.
There are a number of conservative principles claimed by the Republican party but I think there is only one that is fixed, gain all the power and money you can cattering to the 1%. Like every Mafia organization maintaining a good reputation with the marks is part of the gig.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Just imagine the precedent this case would set if SCOTUS decided in Texas’ favor. I’d almost be willing to endure four more years of Trump just to see every single blue state sue every single red state (for all the pseudo Jim Crow shit they’ve pulled after Shelby) after every federal election. Blue states have the tax money to fund lawsuits. What do red states have—a handful of wealthy Federalist patrons?

I think that you are getting the concept of this complaint wrong. Texas is arguing that the states named are breaking the constitutional pact that hold the States together. That those States are not playing by the rules that all the states agreed to on how to choose a federal government. That is a pretty big deal, and one that Texas would have standing in. It would not really allow a state to sue about other laws.
Texas is completely wrong in this case, but I think that it is wrong to say that a State can't make sure that the other states are all following the rules agreed to in the Constitution.
It is worth remembering that the Constitution was not just a compact between the Citizens and the Federal Government, but a compact between independent states to form a union.

Texas AG is under FBI investigation at present...surely not trying to showboat for a pardon.

It is worth noting that it was Paxton's own Deputy AGs that turned him in and are working with the FBI. Paxton is pretty much screwed.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,819
1,573
136
I think that you are getting the concept of this complaint wrong. Texas is arguing that the states named are breaking the constitutional pact that hold the States together. That those States are not playing by the rules that all the states agreed to on how to choose a federal government. That is a pretty big deal, and one that Texas would have standing in. It would not really allow a state to sue about other laws.
Texas is completely wrong in this case, but I think that it is wrong to say that a State can't make sure that the other states are all following the rules agreed to in the Constitution.
It is worth remembering that the Constitution was not just a compact between the Citizens and the Federal Government, but a compact between independent states to form a union.

What rules are there? I believe every state determines how they pick their electors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think that you are getting the concept of this complaint wrong. Texas is arguing that the states named are breaking the constitutional pact that hold the States together. That those States are not playing by the rules that all the states agreed to on how to choose a federal government. That is a pretty big deal, and one that Texas would have standing in. It would not really allow a state to sue about other laws.
Texas is completely wrong in this case, but I think that it is wrong to say that a State can't make sure that the other states are all following the rules agreed to in the Constitution.
It is worth remembering that the Constitution was not just a compact between the Citizens and the Federal Government, but a compact between independent states to form a union.



It is worth noting that it was Paxton's own Deputy AGs that turned him in and are working with the FBI. Paxton is pretty much screwed.

Ugh. The complaint is a rehash of all the conspiracy theories advanced to this point. Go to 7 on page 4-

 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
What rules are there? I believe every state determines how they pick their electors.

While each state does pick it's electors there are rules they must follow, one of them that SCOTUS has said is that once they decide on their rules they can't change them during an election.

Ugh. The complaint is a rehash of all the conspiracy theories advanced to this point. Go to 7 on page 4-


Oh, I am aware. The claims have no merit, and Paxton has no evidence to back up his claims, and no reasonably remedy should he be found to have merit, and the claim should be dismissed by SCOTUS on that basis. I'm just arguing against the idea that one state does not have a standing to declare that another state is not following the Constitution is wrong. It is literally the original intent of The Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
At this point it’s nothing more than a coup attempt. I can only imagine the phone calls and threats Donald Trump is placing upon every republican appointed justice on the US Supreme Court at this very moment. And where are the republicans? All along they have been saying that Donald Trump has ever right to explore his legal actions, we’ll Trump and Rudy have done that and have failed so what is the new talking point? That Donald Trump has ever legal right to explore his government coup options? Are they saying that if Donald Trump can come up with a way to overthrow the US government then that’s ok? That would be something republicans could get onboard with? That republicans would be willing to engage in a coup should Donald Trump find a way to pull off a coup?

You know, I remember a time when such people as Donald Trump attempting to do what Donald Trump is attempting to do would be hanged as a traitor. The government hanged those involved with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. That was an conspiracy to overthrow the US government as well. Everyone involved were hunted down, tried in court, then hanged. So, what is so different now with Donald Trump and all of those republicans in congress that are also involved in a government takeover? If what they are doing, openly doing to overthrow the United States government doesn’t qualify as traitorous and high crimes against the United States... what would qualify??? This is to the point, Donald Trump is to the point where people need to be arrested, tried, then hanged. And Mar-A-Lago would be the perfect place to conduct those public hangings. Wouldn’t we all love to see Donald Trump hanged? And Mitch McConnell hanged? And, wouldn’t they all deserve it for attempting to overthrow the US government? I say hang em, hang them all because it’s time. It’s time bring the traitors to justice.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,819
1,573
136
While each state does pick it's electors there are rules they must follow, one of them that SCOTUS has said is that once they decide on their rules they can't change them during an election.

Do you have an exact quote or ruling? Again, I believe the rules are intra state, meaning that the once the state decides the rules the rules can't be changed by that state during the election.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
Every state in this suit should just get it over with and re-form the confederacy, except this time don't let the door hit you on the way out. We will not fight to save the union. It's best we go our separate ways. Just fuck off.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,937
9,220
136
WTF. 17 GOP-ruled states (single party by design) have filed an amicus brief in SCOTUS supporting Texas’ lawsuit. The coup rolls on. The GOP is now officially the party seeking to establish an American autocracy.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the brief, which was also joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

If they hate America so much, they should just leave. We’re done subsidizing their low tax havens with federal dollars.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
That is true here looking at the case. There are other reasons (e.g. no irreparable injury to plaintiff, granting the injunction causes too much injury to the other side, the proposed injunctive relief is excessive for what would be needed to prevent irreparable injury) an injunction may be denied. However, with just a one-sentence denial, I can hardly imagine any of those were a principal reason for the denial.
And that's a deal-killer right off the bat, asking the SCOTUS to invalidate millions of voters choices even though they voted within laws applicable at the time of election is bat-shit crazy, this case won't ever be heard.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,147
4,847
136
After this is said and done I want to see a race between the Trump clown car and the energizer bunny....just saying. Maybe start them at the lemmings cliff. :p
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
WTF. 17 GOP-ruled states (single party by design) have filed an amicus brief in SCOTUS supporting Texas’ lawsuit. The coup rolls on. The GOP is now officially the party seeking to establish an American autocracy.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the brief, which was also joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

If they hate America so much, they should just leave. We’re done subsidizing their low tax havens with federal dollars.

I'm sure they're under tremendous pressure from their Trump crazed culture warrior constituents. Joining the suit gets the nutbars off their backs. The poor bastards are convinced Trump actually won. Or something like that. The GOP thought they could always control it, because they created it. Except it got away from them with Trump. Lots of people tried to warn them not to do it but they wouldn't listen because they used it to win countless elections since Gingrich. They still are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,757
2,533
126
I saw on the news tonight that Trump and company are now up to 55 lawsuits seeking to overturn the election-only one of which could be deemed a marginal victory (with absolutely no effect on the outcome).

Does such an obvious display of incompetence really rally their base?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
I saw on the news tonight that Trump and company are now up to 55 lawsuits seeking to overturn the election-only one of which could be deemed a marginal victory (with absolutely no effect on the outcome).

Does such an obvious display of incompetence really rally their base?
Trump is the Death Cult Leader. The Republican Base are Death Cult Members.

Whatever Death Cult Leader does rallies the Death Cult Members. It's the whole point of being a Death Cult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie