BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

[Bryce]

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal- ... /supreme-1

If the Justices decide to accept a case (grant a petition for certiorari), the case is placed on the docket

[Honeyman]

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.

[Mark Elliott]

The 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!

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.

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.

[Rate This]

Just because it's on the docket doesn't mean they are going to hear the case, does it?

And your Law degree is from where ??

The university of common sense. You need not apply.

[Honeyman]

The university of common sense. You need not apply.

[Rate This]

The Supreme Court has rejected the Texas lawsuit.

[Lester The Nightfly]

The Supreme Court has rejected the Texas lawsuit.

"Do I still get my pardon?"

- Ken Paxton

[Honeyman]

To quote idiot bidet:

[Honeyman]

“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.”

[Turkeytop]

To quote idiot bidet:

[Honeyman]

Keep waiting for the treasonous grifter to tweet.....

[Bryce]

“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.

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?

[Bryce]

Keep waiting for the treasonous grifter to tweet.....

He may be waiting until someone slowly, repeatedly and painstakingly explains it to the President elect before doing so.

[Honeyman]

“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.

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?

There was no massive fraud, Bryce.

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.

[MWmetalhead]

But, more importantly, if indeed the States in question did violate Article III...

In what respect(s) do you believe Article III was violated?

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.