Twitter Link
Printable View
I am still not certain the duly elected president will be inaugurated come January 20th.
I am.
Totally normal country:
Twitter Link
The only way he doesn't is if he dies first, at this point. Certified results made it in by Dec 8th, and Congress doesn't have the authority to reject them, even if someone tried to send in an alternate slate of electors (which the various state legislatures show no signs of doing).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Truly bizarre even for grand-standing. And supposing there is a majority on the Court willing to try and overturn the election (which the rejection of the filing out of Pennsylvania shows there isn't) they'd still never do so under the notion that officials in one state have legal standing to file suit against another state's purely internal legislating. That'd be opening a never-ending nightmare of suits for the Court.
Original AG just wants a pardon, and a pointless useless stunt like this is exactly the type of thing Trump would be impressed by.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I know Paxton, the AG, would love a federal pardon except he's not going to be charged federally while Trump is still in office and the charges he's already facing are state charges which federal action doesn't do a thing against And the AG, of all people in the state, is aware of those distinctions.
Twitter Link
Turns out that Court Justices can read and aren't impressed when you make up quotes.
It's easy to say that after the 8th, but I didn't write that after the 8th.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
So you didn't, my apologies. Don't know why the "go to new post" took me to yours, I've read the thread since then, but it did and I didn't look at the dates. Mea culpa.
Shit, the states of New California and New Nevada have joined the fray:
Twitter Link
Aren't those loonie movements from people who don't recognize the authority of the federal government? Which makes them joining a lawsuit to get the federal supreme court to interfere with a state's election results ironic to say the least.
And the suit was kicked for lack of standing. I liked how Alito and Thomas' dissent from that said that they thought the state should be heard but they weren't going to grant any injunctive relief so Paxton would have been free to argue the case sometime late next year, "No, no, making a statement about lack of standing is getting too involved in this stupidity. Grant the motion and then just wait for them to withdraw it. If someone still wants to argue for some reason, we'll kick it for there being no continuing justiciable conflict or controversy."
Good to see those patriotic Texans call for secession. I'm sure Lewk will condemn their treason.
I'm not sure if lack of standing is the desired ground for rejection. After all states have a vested interest in electoral process in other states. It might have made more sense to reject on the basis of the timing of the suit; the decision to change rules on postal voting was taken months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
No way. A burned Target is what brings him out on the barricades. Actually tearing down the United States he can live with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tex...abiding-states
So, remember at the start of all this, the news networks don't get to call the winner of an election, the courts do.Quote:
The leader of the Republican Party in Texas suggested Friday that “law-abiding states” might want to form their own "union," after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Lone Star State’s lawsuit over the 2020 presidential election, according to reports.
The high court’s decision was the latest legal setback in GOP efforts to overturn Nov. 3 results that gave Democrat Joe Biden a victory over President Trump, denying Trump a second four-year term.
Texas asserted it had a right “to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.” It claimed that other states suffered whenever one state “violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election."
But the court dismissed the case based on that issue, according to The Associated Press. It said that Texas “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
After the ruling, Allen West, a former Florida congressman who has headed the Texas GOP since July, issued a response.
“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, [has] decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law -- resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences,” West wrote, according to KTVT-TV of Dallas-Fort Worth.
“This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S. Constitution and not be held accountable,” West continued. “This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic.
But when the courts do, the courts don't get to call the winner of an election, the Supreme Court does.
But when the Supreme Court doesn't play ball: screw you guys, we're going full treason now.
Right. The number of people I've seen going: "But we're not a democracy, we're a republic!" (couple with an obligatory "derp!") suggests otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
I'm waiting for the ABA to sanction Powell, Giuliani, et al for bringing frivolous lawsuits, and breaching their oaths to protect and defend the Law according to the Constitution. These people shouldn't be allowed to "practice" law while they undermine and subvert it, like gangsters or grifters. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Not a legal or constitutional one. The mechanism by which states are allowed to express interest in another states purely internal legislation is Congress and the application of the federal supremacy clause. Though in this particular case even that doesn't work. State legislatures choose how their electors are to be selected, period. Second paragraph of Article 2. Congress' power is limited to selecting the time they must choose their electors and the day the electors must cast their ballots. They do not have any Constitutional requirement, for instance, to put it to a popular vote at all. In the early years a number of states saw them appointed directly by the state legislatures. Some states switched between putting it to some sort of popular vote and appointing them. I know Massachusetts went back and forth for a while. This doesn't mean they can actually roll back and take it away from a general vote in the real world anymroe, it's merely to illustrate how it's not something for other states to try and intervene in or dictate on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Adiós Trump.
Twitter Link
I'm starting to discover that an alarming number of practices are just as inept as the general population. We've been going through the process for transferring parental rights with our foster and we've had to send the paperwork back 3 times now for stupid bullshit like misspelled names, incorrect dates, or (my favorite) having the 6 year old brother listed as the father. We are starting to look into getting our own lawyer to look over everything once we've told its final for our own piece of mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Isn't a judge going to decide on this? I'd say the ruling is more relevant than any preliminary paperwork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Still wondering how Trump is going to behave now that a Biden presidency seems to be inevitable. He's got a bunch of unsavory guests at the White House lately.
WH janitors have reported unusual puddles of liquid in several corners of the WH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Apparently the use of the military has been brought up in Trump's recent meeting. Now that the idea is out there, we'll see if Newsmax and Fox goad Trump into using that option.
Thought this was an interesting perspective on the GOP's love-affair with treason:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...573149696.html
I agree, why do you think I call for them to be hanged?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The traitors seem to be talking about an armed attack on democracy.
Fun fact: Trump issued an executive order a while back that re-authorized hanging as a punishment for treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It'd be a shame if we didn't use it at least once before Biden took it off the table again.
They are screening the people who are supposed to keep the inauguration safe?
This is what happens when there are millions of radicalized traitors loyal only to Trump.
That's what happens when you ignore how badly the police and military have been infiltrated by white supremacistsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It only takes a couple of infiltrators too to cause mayhem.
"infiltrated"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I figured explaining how they actively recruit brain dead lewks would be a little to on the nose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Interesting to re-read this thread, especially after the one-year anniversary of 1/6.
Current opinion polls are bleak -- a majority of Republicans still think Biden's election was illegitimate, and far too many think the violence on 1/6 was justified, even "patriotic". Republican-led state legislatures are busy crafting laws that suppress voting AND change how votes are counted and certified. It's all based on lies and disinformation, but it's still happening.
It's easy to dismiss the likelihood of a national Civil War 2 because it seems unthinkable, impossible, bizarre. Just like Trump as president, or the (R) party becoming an anti-democratic, authoritarian cult, or an insurrection/attempted coup once seemed impossible, too. :donkey:
Then I read this article https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...border/621087/ and realized that small-scale "wars" at the state level can be just as dangerous and destructive. Since we've focused on external/foreign threats for so long, it's hard to admit the biggest threats to our Repubic are domestic/internal.
Yeah, I remain worried :(
This is a bit old now, but I'm still stunned at just how much shit was thrown at the walls in the attempted coup...
Found that election fraud Trump was talking about!Quote:
In the weeks after the 2020 election, then-President Donald Trump's allies sent fake certificates to the National Archives declaring that Trump won seven states that he actually lost. The documents had no impact on the outcome of the election, but they are yet another example of how Team Trump tried to subvert the Electoral College -- a key line of inquiry for the January 6 committee.
The fake certificates were created by Trump allies in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico, who sought to replace valid presidential electors from their states with a pro-Trump slate, according to documents obtained by American Oversight.
...
Installing slates of "alternate electors" was an integral part of the ill-fated plan conceived by Trump allies to usurp power on January 6 by pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to throw out the pro-Biden electors that had been chosen by voters. The idea was promoted by Trump advisers inside and outside the White House, including controversial right-wing lawyer John Eastman.
The best part is that the Republican officials involved signed their names to these forgeries. They were so confident that they would get away with it, they signed and in at least one case notarized the evidence of their treason and submitted it to the national archives.
Haha totally normal democracy