RyanAg08 said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

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.

---

Here's a preview of their response.

---

I mean it worked for Pennsylvania the last time they were in court

Posted in the Trump intervenes thread by me.

Let me put this in football terms to explain my point. Remember when Texas Tech fired Mike Leach and he sued? There was a sovereign immunity issue that was presented. A citizen needs statutory authorization to sue a state or the federal government. And there are statutes that make such redress available such as tort claims acts on state and federal levels, civil rights issues and the like. Anything outside of those statutory avenues is always subject to the bar from remedy under sovereign immunity.

With me so far?

So now I'll talk about what lawyers call the "style" of the case. That is where the names of the parties and in which capacity they are being sued are named. Look at all of the cases filed thus far by the Trump campaign in multiple state and federal courts. State officials are being sued in their state capacities, not personally and most notably, not the sovereign state itself.

Huge difference.

Now, to the 11th Amendment.

Quote:

---

Quote:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

---

Awkwardly worded I know but read it a few times. See the problem?

Trump, partially in his personal capacity, is seeking to intervene in a suit against sovereign states. Now his pleading says there are some case law exception for the application of the 11th in certain circumstances but it is still a very murky area, in my view.

So who is the 18th state? Or do they mean 19 including Texas?

MostlyHarmless said:

---

So who is the 18th state? Or do they mean 19 including Texas?

---

Believe it is 19 including Texas

ClutchCityAg said:

---

AZ is in now too!

---

Isn't the AG of AZ an extreme leftist?

Edit: nope I'm thinking of the SOS

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

I've seen mixed stories on what SCOTUS did on the Pennsylvania case. Did they outright refuse to hear it on the merits, or did they just refuse the emergency injunction while leaving open the ability to hear and/or decide the case on the merits?

ClutchCityAg said:

---

MostlyHarmless said:

---

So who is the 18th state? Or do they mean 19 including Texas?

---

Believe it is 19 including Texas

---

So if you include the defendants, almost half the union is involved. Pretty incredible

rgag12 said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

MostlyHarmless said:

---

So who is the 18th state? Or do they mean 19 including Texas?

---

Believe it is 19 including Texas

---

So if you include the defendants, almost half the union is involved. Pretty incredible

---

I really expected several other states would have joined before Arizona. Glad they are on board.

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

I've seen mixed stories on what SCOTUS did on the Pennsylvania case. Did they outright refuse to hear it on the merits, or did they just refuse the emergency injunction while leaving open the ability to hear and/or decide the case on the merits?

---

Badly pleaded by Kelly's lawyers. They tried to file an emergency appeal but then said if not granted, then that same filing should be read as a petition for cert.

Full disclosure I was never licensed by the US Supreme Court but I know their rules are legion. They should have filed a separate petition for cert and not try to bootstrap that into different pleadings. I'll admit when I read that I thought, "Uhmm, how does that work? File for cert!"

I know I have been out of the law biz for awhile but simple crap hadn't changed for over two hundred years+ before that, so why now?

aggiehawg said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

I've seen mixed stories on what SCOTUS did on the Pennsylvania case. Did they outright refuse to hear it on the merits, or did they just refuse the emergency injunction while leaving open the ability to hear and/or decide the case on the merits?

---

Badly pleaded by Kelly's lawyers. They tried to file an emergency appeal but then said if not granted, then that same filing should be read as a petition for cert.

Full disclosure I was never licensed by the US Supreme Court but I know their rules are legion. They should have filed a separate petition for cert and not try to bootstrap that into different pleadings. I'll admit when I read that I thought, "Uhmm, how does that work? File for cert!"

I know I have been out of the law biz for awhile but simple crap hadn't changed for over two hundred years+ before that, so why now?

---

So how could they miss this? The most important work they've ever done and their blowing it?

Can someone get aggiehawg to explain this one, too?

txags92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

I've seen mixed stories on what SCOTUS did on the Pennsylvania case. Did they outright refuse to hear it on the merits, or did they just refuse the emergency injunction while leaving open the ability to hear and/or decide the case on the merits?

---

TBH, IDK. Weirdly pleaded case.

It's ironic to see the POTUS have his case handled personally by "Lyin' Ted"

Hamburger Dan said:

---

It's ironic to see the POTUS have his case handled personally by "Lyin' Ted"

---

Politics makes strange bedfellows as the saying goes... and this one is especially strange.

will25u said:

---

---

Would be fantastic if Georgia joins the Texas lawsuit agains the corrupt cities in the swing states being sued.

So if SCOTUS hears the Texas case and overturns " Equal Protection " ( Bush v Gore ) , does Al Gore become President ?