*****OFFICIAL ELECTION DAY THREAD*****
2,696,743 Views |
20889 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Whistle Pig
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Prognightmare said:
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Yes, but when he said this: "Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit" it gave me pause...
By "joining" the case that makes the intervenor an actual party. Such might impact the original jurisdiction giving Texas standing here. Since it would no longer be only state v. state.Tailgate88 said:Hawg et al, Can you explain for us IANALs what the difference is between "joining" the suit and "intervening" in it?oldarmy1 said:
TIA!
But by joining in on the filing of an amicus brief, that is as "a friend of the Court" that does not rise to actually being a party and thus no possible impact on jurisdiction.
HTH.
So when the President says they're "intervening" what does that mean? Thanks for all of your knowledge!aggiehawg said:By "joining" the case that makes the intervenor an actual party. Such might impact the original jurisdiction giving Texas standing here. Since it would no longer be only state v. state.Tailgate88 said:Hawg et al, Can you explain for us IANALs what the difference is between "joining" the suit and "intervening" in it?oldarmy1 said:
TIA!
But by joining in on the filing of an amicus brief, that is as "a friend of the Court" that does not rise to actually being a party and thus no possible impact on jurisdiction.
HTH.
Response after reading tweet:aggiehawg said:By "joining" the case that makes the intervenor an actual party. Such might impact the original jurisdiction giving Texas standing here. Since it would no longer be only state v. state.Tailgate88 said:Hawg et al, Can you explain for us IANALs what the difference is between "joining" the suit and "intervening" in it?oldarmy1 said:
TIA!
But by joining in on the filing of an amicus brief, that is as "a friend of the Court" that does not rise to actually being a party and thus no possible impact on jurisdiction.
HTH.
Response after reading Hawg's explanation:
It means he's not a lawyer and is using the wrong legal term (hopefully).agcrock2005 said:So when the President says they're "intervening" what does that mean? Thanks for all of your knowledge!aggiehawg said:By "joining" the case that makes the intervenor an actual party. Such might impact the original jurisdiction giving Texas standing here. Since it would no longer be only state v. state.Tailgate88 said:Hawg et al, Can you explain for us IANALs what the difference is between "joining" the suit and "intervening" in it?oldarmy1 said:
TIA!
But by joining in on the filing of an amicus brief, that is as "a friend of the Court" that does not rise to actually being a party and thus no possible impact on jurisdiction.
HTH.
Could someone explain what the strategy was to submit this lawsuit to SCOTUS on the deadline of December 8th?
ClutchCityAg said:
Anotha one!
If I'm John Roberts or any of the other leftist Justices, I'm getting a little bit intimidated right about now. An alliance like this, although very informal, is reminiscent of years just prior to the civil war. Does it mean a war will break out? No, but it definitely makes one wonder.
Of course, if a war does happen, this time there won't be a righteous cause (slavery) to excuse their government overreach on. Instead history would be very kind to the south (and midwest) this go around.
17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden winravingfans said:Prognightmare said:
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Yes, but when he said this: "Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit" it gave me pause...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/states-tell-supreme-court-they-support-texas-bid-to-reverse-biden-win.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
BOOM
I'll type slower. LOL. j/kDisappointedAg said:Response after reading tweet:aggiehawg said:By "joining" the case that makes the intervenor an actual party. Such might impact the original jurisdiction giving Texas standing here. Since it would no longer be only state v. state.Tailgate88 said:Hawg et al, Can you explain for us IANALs what the difference is between "joining" the suit and "intervening" in it?oldarmy1 said:
TIA!
But by joining in on the filing of an amicus brief, that is as "a friend of the Court" that does not rise to actually being a party and thus no possible impact on jurisdiction.
HTH.
Response after reading Hawg's explanation:
The original jurisdiction for the SCOTUS here is exclusive to them when a state sues another state. And if you think about it, makes perfect sense. Texas can't sue another sovereign state in a Texas state court. Nor could they file it in a Texas based federal court. Conversely, why in hell would they want sue Georgia for example in a Georgia state court or even a federal court based in Georgia? They wouldn't.
Thus the Supreme Court has original (not appellate) jurisdiction for disputes between states. With me so far?
Okay, Normal lawsuit: Plaintiff sues defendant. But someone else wants to "join" into the plaintiff's suit (think like a class action on a singular scale) and petitions the court to "intervene" in the current case to also make their claims against the defendant. If granted leave to intervene, they become an actual party to the case and enjoy all rights and duties for full participation in the case thereafter.
Thus the Trump Campaign does not want to participate in the case as an actual party, as the exclusive state v. state jurisdiction would become murky, possibly threatening the case.
What the Trump Campaign can do without presenting that jurisdictional issue and to "join" by filing an amicus curiae brief, as "a friend of the Court" in support of the actual plaintiff, the State of Texas. By filing an amicus, they would not then be a party entitled to full participation in the case. Indeed the filing of the brief would be the sum total of their participation.
Better?
Have states ever joined forces like this before? If so, when? And to what extent? Google is not being friendly
Form a new Country - Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
CrazyRichAggie said:
Form a new Country - Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
The problem with that is that the liberals alway invade an area and **** everything up eventually.
Actually, they do it more than you would think. When Obama was POTUS there were multistate suits on issues like ObamaCare and immigration, for instance.vette said:
Have states ever joined forces like this before? If so, when? And to what extent? Google is not being friendly
When do we know for certain if the SCOTUS will "take the case"?
It wasn't a strategic question, it was a deadline question. File after the Safe Harbor date and case can be ruled moot. File before the Safe Harbor date and that lessens to defense of it being mooted out.Lorne Malvo said:
Could someone explain what the strategy was to submit this lawsuit to SCOTUS on the deadline of December 8th?
Has there ever been this many, 18 plus Texas?
aggiehawg said:It wasn't a strategic question, it was a deadline question. File after the Safe Harbor date and case can be ruled moot. File before the Safe Harbor date and that lessens to defense of it being mooted out.Lorne Malvo said:
Could someone explain what the strategy was to submit this lawsuit to SCOTUS on the deadline of December 8th?
Got it, thanks.
Hell if I know. But to be precise, these states are not actually joining as parties to the case.AggieKeith15 said:
Has there ever been this many, 18 plus Texas?
They are joining in on amicus briefs in support of the party plaintiff, which is the State of Texas.
What would preclude those states filing their own suits, separate and apart from the Texas suit?aggiehawg said:Hell if I know. But to be precise, these states are not actually joining as parties to the case.AggieKeith15 said:
Has there ever been this many, 18 plus Texas?
They are joining in on amicus briefs in support of the party plaintiff, which is the State of Texas.
It seems by filing in their own name, it would not affect the state v. state issue.
Time. The runway is the size of a saltine cracker right now.Pinche Abogado said:What would preclude those states filing their own suits, separate and apart from the Texas suit?aggiehawg said:Hell if I know. But to be precise, these states are not actually joining as parties to the case.AggieKeith15 said:
Has there ever been this many, 18 plus Texas?
They are joining in on amicus briefs in support of the party plaintiff, which is the State of Texas.
It seems by filing in their own name, it would not affect the state v. state issue.
Prognightmare said:17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden winravingfans said:Prognightmare said:
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Yes, but when he said this: "Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit" it gave me pause...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/states-tell-supreme-court-they-support-texas-bid-to-reverse-biden-win.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
BOOM
22 pages that basically boil down to an argument that mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud in general and then goes through each allegation from the Texas complaint and details how such actions by the Defendant States could have increased the possibility of a fraudulent outcome.
There's no suggestion that SCOTUS should rule in favor of Texas, grant the extraordinary relief requested, or "reverse Biden's win." The conclusion is "these are very important issues which Texas has raised and the Court should at least consider the merits."
ClutchCityAg
Joined:
Dec 6, 2014
Posts:
2,008
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Correction said:Prognightmare said:17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden winravingfans said:Prognightmare said:
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Yes, but when he said this: "Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit" it gave me pause...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/states-tell-supreme-court-they-support-texas-bid-to-reverse-biden-win.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
BOOM
22 pages that basically boil down to an argument that mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud in general and then goes through each allegation from the Texas complaint and details how such actions by the Defendant States could have increased the possibility of a fraudulent outcome.
There's no suggestion that SCOTUS should rule in favor of Texas, grant the extraordinary relief requested, or "reverse Biden's win." The conclusion is "these are very important issues which Texas has raised and the Court should at least consider the merits."
Wrong. This has nothing to do with the likliness of fraud via mail in voting. This has everything to do with non-legislative powers changing election laws which is unconstitional.
Also, it asks to confirm that the state legislatures can vote to determine the election, rather than honor the (illegally held) election results.
Correction said:Prognightmare said:17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden winravingfans said:Prognightmare said:
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Yes, but when he said this: "Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit" it gave me pause...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/states-tell-supreme-court-they-support-texas-bid-to-reverse-biden-win.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
BOOM
22 pages that basically boil down to an argument that mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud in general and then goes through each allegation from the Texas complaint and details how such actions by the Defendant States could have increased the possibility of a fraudulent outcome.
There's no suggestion that SCOTUS should rule in favor of Texas, grant the extraordinary relief requested, or "reverse Biden's win." The conclusion is "these are very important issues which Texas has raised and the Court should at least consider the merits."
Those states violated the constitution by changing their election laws without approval of the states' legislatures. The US constitution is clear that state legislatures have the sole authority to set election laws.
That's limiting. Under the Constitution, state legislatures have the sole plenary power to decide how to select its states electors in a federal election. Wider than "set election laws."Quote:
The US constitution is clear that state legislatures have the sole authority to set election laws.
TexasAggie_02 said:Correction said:Prognightmare said:17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden winravingfans said:Prognightmare said:
No, we want ALL States to join this and make SCOTUS end this election fraud bull***** We need every state joining us.
Yes, but when he said this: "Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit" it gave me pause...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/states-tell-supreme-court-they-support-texas-bid-to-reverse-biden-win.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard
BOOM
22 pages that basically boil down to an argument that mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud in general and then goes through each allegation from the Texas complaint and details how such actions by the Defendant States could have increased the possibility of a fraudulent outcome.
There's no suggestion that SCOTUS should rule in favor of Texas, grant the extraordinary relief requested, or "reverse Biden's win." The conclusion is "these are very important issues which Texas has raised and the Court should at least consider the merits."
Those states violated the constitution by changing their election laws without approval of the states' legislatures. The US constitution is clear that state legislatures have the sole authority to set election laws.
Sort of like Abbott did when he extended early voting by a week?
Aggiehawg, do you think this thing has legs?
My pronouns are AFUERA/AHORA!
Except per Lin Wood, Florida may actually be taking the extra step to join as a party, correct?aggiehawg said:Hell if I know. But to be precise, these states are not actually joining as parties to the case.AggieKeith15 said:
Has there ever been this many, 18 plus Texas?
They are joining in on amicus briefs in support of the party plaintiff, which is the State of Texas.
Quote:
[url=https://twitter.com/LLinWood][/url]Lin Wood
@LLinWood
[url=https://twitter.com/LLinWood][/url]
1h
I have just been informed that Florida will join in amicus brief to be filed in U.S. Supreme Court in Texas case. Also told that thereafter, Florida will intervene in Texas lawsuit. My source is extremely reliable & credible.
Featured Stories
See All
Pass-catcher Will Hargett to continue family legacy at Texas A&M
by Olin Buchanan
12:06
2h ago
510
26:10
4h ago
3.6k
Top-ranked Texas A&M picked to win SEC in preseason coaches poll
by Richard Zane