I hate it when I get mooted out.

And thanks for dumbing it down for folks like me.

Correction said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

ravingfans 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...

---

17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden win

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."

---

You clearly didn't read the filing if you think the accusation in the case is fraud...

Quote:

---

The problem with that is that the liberals alway invade an area and **** everything up eventually.

---

Fences make good neighbors.

will25u said:

---

---

This seems big and also seems to be the answer to my question earlier about Trump talking about "intervening".

will25u said:

---

---

What does this mean?

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Correction said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

ravingfans 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...

---

17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden win

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?

---

Is there an election law in Texas about the timing of early voting?

If so, do you really want to compare making more opportunities to come in person, show an ID, and vote to ballots being mailed out to every single person on the voter rolls, not requiring signatures or ID's?

That's really your argument? sheesh.

---

Yea they trotted that out there this morning in another thread and thought they had "debunked" the suit

txag72 said:

---

Quote:

---

The problem with that is that the liberals alway invade an area and **** everything up eventually.

---

Fences make good neighbors.

---

electricity and razor wire make better fences.

The "Red Button".

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

What does this mean?

---

This means this is for all the marbles.

If the court doesn't decide to hear this then we can admit it's over, including our country. No longer will the constitution mean diddly squat, the supreme court will be meaningless, and there's some serious bad **** on the horizon.

---

Don't love the sound of that!

Quote:

---

mooted

---

I'm using that word someplace tomorrow, preferably not around any women. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be received well.

rgag12 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

Shanked Punt said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

Correction said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

ravingfans 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...

---

17 states tell Supreme Court they support Texas bid to reverse Biden win

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?

---

Is there an election law in Texas about the timing of early voting?

If so, do you really want to compare making more opportunities to come in person, show an ID, and vote to ballots being mailed out to every single person on the voter rolls, not requiring signatures or ID's?

That's really your argument? sheesh.

---

Yea they trotted that out there this morning in another thread and thought they had "debunked" the suit

---

LOL sometimes the left is so stupid I can't tell if they are joking or if it's a serious argument. I hope that's the defense they go with.

I am actually curious what defense they are going to try and present. The only thing I can find about this suit on the left is them poking holes in the fraud claims, like the 1 in 1 Billion percent claim.

My guess its going to revolve around extenuating circumstances. Anyone have some guesses?

Agreed, we finally agree. He had no right to extend that an I hopes he's impeached for overstepping his authority.

RedHand said:

---

I am actually curious what defense they are going to try and present. The only thing I can find about this suit on the left is them poking holes in the fraud claims, like the 1 in 1 Billion percent claim.

My guess its going to revolve around extenuating circumstances. Anyone have some guesses?

---

My guess is that they'll try multiple angles. First off is the one the media has been using, which is the pshhh can you be for real there is no widespread fraud this is merit-less angle. Then they'll go with the PA SOS's do you really want to open Pandora's box plea. To top it off they'll do the same old song and dance when it comes to loose vs. strict interpretation of the constitution and say that the constitution REALLY means I can do whatever I want to.

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

ClutchCityAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

---

The case that Texas filed is based on law, not an evidentiary case. Muddying the waters here by adding questions of fact, if the filing appears to insert such.

It was a cleaner case before.

aggiehawg said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

---

The case that Texas filed is based on law, not an evidentiary case. Muddying the waters here by adding questions of fact, if the filing appears to insert such.

It was a cleaner case before.

---

Wouldn't you think they would have talked with Texas before just barging in? I know it's Trump but he does seem to have some calculation before his seemingly impulsive moves...lol.

aggiehawg said:

---

Better?

---

hahahaha...no ma'am...would you speak english please?

What about if another state were to intervene?

aggiehawg said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

---

The case that Texas filed is based on law, not an evidentiary case. Muddying the waters here by adding questions of fact, if the filing appears to insert such.

It was a cleaner case before.

---

Can SCOTUS simply decline to let Trump join since this is a state vs state case?

aggiehawg said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

---

The case that Texas filed is based on law, not an evidentiary case. Muddying the waters here by adding questions of fact, if the filing appears to insert such.

It was a cleaner case before.

---

Trump's request to intervene will be denied likely, so this shouldn't raise any issues, right?

Thinking on it more, I don't see how he would be a necessary party in this lawsuit. This is a question of state rights, not necessarily about a fair election.

aggiehawg said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

---

The case that Texas filed is based on law, not an evidentiary case. Muddying the waters here by adding questions of fact, if the filing appears to insert such.

It was a cleaner case before.

---

I'm confused. We are talking about joining the lawsuit vs showing support for it, correct? If I'm not mistaken Trump and the other states have just done the "showing support" route right now, correct?

chjoak said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I am not happy with this move by Trump and his lawyer, Eastman. Feel it is a mistake. Guess we'll see if it's as big of a mistake as I fear or not. We are running out of time here.

---

Wouldn't this allow them to admit additional evidence that they have? Why do you feel it is a mistake?

---

The case that Texas filed is based on law, not an evidentiary case. Muddying the waters here by adding questions of fact, if the filing appears to insert such.

It was a cleaner case before.

---

I'm confused. We are talking about joining the lawsuit vs showing support for it, correct? If I'm not mistaken Trump and the other states have just done the "showing support" route right now, correct?

---

No. Apparently Trump (and Florida) have moved to intervene, not just file an amicus brief.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

What about if another state were to intervene?

---

That's fine as it keeps the state versus state original and exclusive jurisdiction fully intact.

BUT, even in a purely state versus state case, the Supreme Court can still decline to take the case up for orals and a full decision. It is discretionary. Giving them any excuse to punt is just adding temptation to do so.

That's my fear after Alito's action yesterday. Demands response and briefs from the defense in the Kelly Pennsylvania case and then shoots out basically a one sentence steaming dump on the case an hour or so later.

I no longer trust our judiciary, including sadly, SCOTUS.

How soon will they have to decide whether to take case?

The four states have until tomorrow to respond.

Line Ate Member said:

---

The four states have until tomorrow to respond.

---

To whom? Texas, or to the SCOTUS? And then SCOTUS decides if they take it based off their response?

agcrock2005 said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

The four states have until tomorrow to respond.

---

To whom? Texas, or to the SCOTUS? And then SCOTUS decides if they take it based off their response?

---

from what it sounded like, they have until tomorrow to respond to the accusations laid out by Texas to the SCOTUS.