If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket
Acceptable registrations in the queue through June 3 at 5:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal- ... /supreme-1
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Ohio, said some of the conservative justices may vote to consider the lawsuit’s arguments on the grounds that they need to hear “original jurisdiction” cases. But even those justices are still very unlikely to go along with Paxton’s effort to upend the election, Adler added.
“My view is that the justices would be very, wary of opening that can of worms,” Adler said.
Adler said it is possible that Paxton brought the case in the hopes of getting a presidential pardon from Trump. Paxton faces allegations in Texas of bribery and abuse of his office to benefit a political donor, according to local media.
“It is fairly clear that one way you get a pardon is you rally to the president’s defense,” Adler said.
“My view is that the justices would be very, wary of opening that can of worms,” Adler said.
Adler said it is possible that Paxton brought the case in the hopes of getting a presidential pardon from Trump. Paxton faces allegations in Texas of bribery and abuse of his office to benefit a political donor, according to local media.
“It is fairly clear that one way you get a pardon is you rally to the president’s defense,” Adler said.
The censorship king from out of state.
- Mark Elliott
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:09 am
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
Statement One above is true. However, statement 2 is misleading at best. Here's the story of the PA case, put ON THE DOCKET but not heard after filing deadline.Bryce wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:56 pmThe Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket:
Zero Hedge confirms this, noting that once a case is put on the docket, that means it will be heard. So Texas is off to a great start!
http://amylhowe.com/2020/12/08/justices ... for-biden/
Filing deadline on the Texas case is 3pm today. SCOTUS can and might still agree to hear the case, but when? And, if the Electoral College votes Monday, and a President is inaugurated on Jan 20th, there is no recourse thru SCOTUS to affect this, as far as I can tell.
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
The Supreme Court has rejected the Texas lawsuit.
- Lester The Nightfly
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 pm
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
To quote idiot bidet:
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court’s order reads. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
Keep waiting for the treasonous grifter to tweet.....
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
Notice the court say's, "denied for lack of standing under Article III." They didn't say that the states didn't VIOLATE Article III.
I, along with any number of people that study the COTUS, along with the Federalist Papers that give insight to the thinking of the founders when they wrote it, could disagree with the "lack of standing" ruling, and do.
But, more importantly, if indeed the States in question did violate Article III and the SCOTUS did nothing to intervene given "lack of standing," what's to stop States from deciding to not adhere to say, the Second Amendment or the First? States have already shown the hubris to violate federal law with sanctuary policy. What's to stop them from violating others if the SCOTUS fails to stand up to their wanton temerity?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
He may be waiting until someone slowly, repeatedly and painstakingly explains it to the President elect before doing so.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
There was no massive fraud, Bryce.Bryce wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:58 pm
Notice the court say's, "denied for lack of standing under Article III." They didn't say that the states didn't VIOLATE Article III.
I, along with any number of people that study the COTUS, along with the Federalist Papers that give insight to the thinking of the founders when they wrote it, could disagree with the "lack of standing" ruling, and do.
But, more importantly, if indeed the States in question did violate Article III and the SCOTUS did nothing to intervene given "lack of standing," what's to stop States from deciding to not adhere to say, the Second Amendment or the First? States have already shown the hubris to violate federal law with sanctuary policy. What's to stop them from violating others if the SCOTUS fails to stand up to their wanton temerity?
Only because we have a narcissistic, self-absorbed, possibly insane man in the White House, is this even happening.
What this will do to our country in the long-term, I honestly believe will be devastating.
The censorship king from out of state.
- MWmetalhead
- Site Admin
- Posts: 12346
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am
Re: BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states
In what respect(s) do you believe Article III was violated?But, more importantly, if indeed the States in question did violate Article III...
It is common knowledge that easier access to the ballot box generally benefits the Dems. Trump's polling numbers & popularity were mediocre in most of the battleground states. Thus, it is easy to understand why Trump was scared shitless when many states - especially vote-rich states where his path to victory was already going to be rocky - announced a shift to no-reason absentee voting, early voting, etc. This is why he "set the table" very early on to assert allegations of "massive widespread fraud!", etc., etc. It was all a contrived ploy. Record turnout = bad news for Trump.
The irony is - Detroit isn't why Trump lost Michigan. Oakland County and Kent County are why Trump lost Michigan. Voter turnout in Detroit was only ~51%, which was actually LESS than the 53% to 55% that was projected. The percentage of votes who went Dem for the top of the ticket was similar to past elections, too. The areas where a big shift in terms of raw votes were Oakland County and Kent County.
Morgan Wallen is a piece of garbage.