dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 36,129
- 30,521
- 136
"This is the big one!"
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."This is the big one!"
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.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?
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.It's a 15 page thread, people miss stuff.
Here's why it could havr mattered.It doesn't matter. None saw fit to offer written dissent.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
Texas AG is under FBI investigation at present...surely not trying to showboat for a pardon.
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.
I don't mind the insult, but i do mind the boring.Shut the fuck up, clown.
Your schtick may have a few more words to it, but it's every bit as predictable.I don't mind the insult, but i do mind the boring.
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.
What rules are there? I believe every state determines how they pick their electors.
Ugh. The complaint is a rehash of all the conspiracy theories advanced to this point. Go to 7 on page 4-
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.
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.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.
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.
Trump is the Death Cult Leader. The Republican Base are Death Cult Members.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?
