»
Topic: You lawyers on the board, can someone explain to me
Replies: 70   Last Post: Dec 11, 2020, 6:09 PM by: deweather
[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 70  

You lawyers on the board, can someone explain to me


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 8:34 AM
    Reply

how Texas et al have standing in this case they are sending to the supreme court?

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Re: You lawyers on the board, can someone explain to me


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:09 AM
    Reply

They don't actually, but they are claiming that those mean people in PA, Mi, AZ. and GA. who voted for Biden disenfranchised their votes for Trump.

link

I hope they had a parachute for that leap


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:10 AM
    Reply

If that's true, then anybody who votes against my preferred candidate disenfranchises me.

Which is not the definition of disenfranchisement.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


It doesn't.***

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:13 AM
    Reply



2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


I understand the basis of their case, but it seems like they

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:13 AM
    Reply

are squandering the argument.

I'd love feedback from the lawyers in here, but it feels like there could be some precedent established in this weak case that could be used against them in a more solid case, such as making the same argument against states if the Interstate popular vote compact ever reaches critical mass.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg link


Hey

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:20 AM
    Reply

what?

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


I’ll draw some MS Paint pics and repost.***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:21 AM
    Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg link


No need. Just draw it in poop on a wall***

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:21 AM
    Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Re: I understand the basis of their case, but it seems like they

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:35 AM
    Reply

Not sure who you are saying is squandering something. The potential dangerous precedent is that if the States are allowed to file suit after every election, the Supreme Court will be in charge of every election.

The Supreme Court will never allow that to be the precedent. A similar rule applies to voters who are unhappy with the outcome of an election. They lack standing to sue.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


Sorry, I may not be clear, or am just missing the

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 10:38 AM
    Reply

legal mark....

I'm saying if the court were to make a broad judgement and rule that another state's voters cannot disenfranchise the voters of another state, would that not be a precedent?

And if, down the road, a more "serious" case arose, such as the Interstate popular vote compact becoming reality, and a non IPV state files suit on the same grounds (their voters being disenfranchised by those of another state), could the precedent from this case not be used against them in that case?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-obed.jpg link


I don't understand how, in any scenario,


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:15 PM
    Reply

even this "interstate popular vote" thing (which I think is silly), voters in another state could say they've been disenfranchised.

If another state chooses to appoint their electors in a different way, that's their business. I can think it's wrong and not like it, but I'm not disenfranchised by it.

link

Seems like the ones disenfranchised would be


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:16 PM
    Reply

the ones within those states.

link

That's correct.***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:24 PM
    Reply



2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


Re: I don't understand how, in any scenario,

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:23 PM
    Reply

I don’t see how you people can’t understand this. Let’s make an extreme example to illustrate.

Okay, so every state lays out an election code from their legislatures. However, all of the executive branches in Blue States make a side agreement that the Dem candidate will automatically be the winner in their state no matter what.

Do you not see how that’s an illegitimate election and disenfranchises the people who voted legally in other states, according to the Constitution and their state election codes? If we can agree to fundamentally fair and legitimate elections, then we might as well not even hold them anymore.

Yes, these are state election code issues but there are federal candidates involved...federal candidates that make decisions for the entire country, including the people who didn’t vote for them. That is what the TX AG is arguing.

2021 orange level member link

If the other states legally choose to appoint their electors


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:29 PM
    Reply

in a different way, then it's not illegitimate. It might be really stupid, and against what I believe in, and if I lived there, I might move, but it's not illegal.

See, you just said something that I don't think the Texas AG can say out loud, but I think it's true. What they don't want is Joe Biden being President, because they think that's bad for them and the country. It's not about whether other states followed the law or not. It's about not wanting a bad President. That's why they are only suing states that Biden won.

Obviously, Texas cannot argue in court that they are damaged by Biden being President, because it hasn't even happened yet.

link

Re: If the other states legally choose to appoint their electors


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:47 PM
    Reply

No. Still not getting it. The Constitution says the legislatures have the right to select the electors. They delegate that right through the election code in these states. There are procedures to change the state codes and state constitutions that were not followed in some of these states. Therefore if the states don’t follow their legislatures’ procedures, then the right should revert back to the legislatures.

2021 orange level member link

And how does the PA legislature's power

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:48 PM
    Reply

get delegated to the Texas AG?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

Re: And how does the PA legislature's power


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:52 PM
    Reply

It doesn’t. He’s arguing that the PA legislature should decide their electors in the absence of the state following its own election code. Read the complaint. Maybe they vote for Biden too. Not likely given that their majority Republican but they could, as they are elected by their constituents. Maybe their a bunch of Susan Collins’s.

2021 orange level member link

So to get this straight. More people in PA voted for Biden


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:54 PM
    Reply

but because election officials "didn't follow their laws" A completely different state is saying to invalidate those millions of votes and make the state legislature (of a state they have nothing to do with) vote for who's president. Not the people. Their vote doesn't matter.

And you're ok with this.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


Re: So to get this straight. More people in PA voted for Biden


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:56 PM
    Reply

They’re arguing that you can’t know that Biden received more votes because PA didn’t follow their election code and constitution.

2021 orange level member link

Legislatures delegate their authority all the time...

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:58 PM
    Reply

sometimes to the executive and sometimes to the administrative agencies charged with handling day to day crap.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

Re: Legislatures delegate their authority all the time...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:01 PM
    Reply

Yep except that didn’t happen in those states as far as the election is concerned.

2021 orange level member link

At least you are consistent. SCOTUS is NOT going


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:43 PM
    Reply

to approve this case. Every legal constitution expert that has provided comments to the media have all said that this will never make it through SCOTUS.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: At least you are consistent. SCOTUS is NOT going


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:46 PM
    Reply

I’ve said that as well. Just explaining what the case is about. Thanks for the input though.

2021 orange level member link

Oh Christ. That's a dumb argument.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:37 PM
    Reply

Flip it around. They (Texas) doesn't know that more people didn't vote for Biden because of all of that. The burden of proof is on them, and they don't have it.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

This subthread is not about Texas lawsuit situation.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:54 PM
    Reply

At least I didn't think it was.

This subthread is about the scenario of a state deciding to choose its electors in a different way, like using national popular vote.

link

But if they wanted to exercise that power, why didn't they?


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:55 PM
    Reply

They had every opportunity to do so from the very moment the law was enacted. They chose not to.

if they chose not to, why does the Texas AG think he can make them?

This case is frivolous ########.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

Re: But if they wanted to exercise that power, why didn't they?


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:57 PM
    Reply

Changes were made by the courts and SoS all the way up to the election. Also if they sued before the election they may not have had standing. At least that’s what they’re saying.

2021 orange level member link

So when they lost, they now have "standing"...? Nice.***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:48 PM
    Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Yep, that's what he said.

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:59 PM
    Reply

Texas AG can't say that out loud, but it's the reality. If PA had gone for the President, with the same "illegal" apparatus, they wouldn't have sued them.

link

Has DRad called Swoffie about the ND game yet...?***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:10 PM
    Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

We're talking about different things.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:49 PM
    Reply

I'm talking about those legislatures changing how they appoint electors, just as you describe.

You appear to believe I'm talking about something else.

link

Re: I don't understand how, in any scenario,


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 12:32 PM
    Reply

Right it is simple, and I see it the same way. The big question in my mind is is there proof the exec branches in those states broke the law? But, maybe since electors are used instead of popular votes, the argument is weaker.

Agree, though, the SC may not want to take the case just because they don't want to set the precedent of taking one like this...

Seems to me, there should be clarity at the level of their (SC) legal thinking on whether or not the case has merit. Just have to wait and see...

link

The Texas case is going nowhere. My guess is we get


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:38 PM
    Reply

the word back from SCOTUS late this afternoon, or worst case Monday morning.

Trumps tweet tone today lends one to believe he knows it is dead.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If the SCOTUS doesn't hear the case they will...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:09 PM
    Reply

set a precedent that no suit between states should be heard. That was part of Thomas' descent in Nebraska v Colorado about legalized pot against federal law.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

It's not just because it's two different states...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:11 PM
    Reply

It'd be thrown out because Texas was not damaged, therefore has no standing. It's not a blanket statement about all cases between states.

link

Good Lord...

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:16 PM
    Reply

please, stop opining about legal precedent.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

May I ask a question then?


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:23 PM
    Reply

Does 'Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint,' mean anything to a lawyer?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

Here:


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:28 PM
    Reply

"The complaint, on its face, presents a “controvers[y]
between two or more States” that this Court alone has
authority to adjudicate. 28 U. S. C. §1251(a). The plaintiff States have alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another State. Whatever the
merit of the plaintiff States’ claims, we should let this
complaint proceed further rather than denying leave

without so much as a word of explanation.

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) 5
THOMAS, J., dissenting

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

Thomas's dissent is the opposite of what the law is.***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:33 PM
    Reply



2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


So he's an activist judge?***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:35 PM
    Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

Sort of. Here's why.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:47 PM
    Reply

In that dissent, Thomas (joined by Alito) reasons that the Supreme Court has no discretion about taking cases so long as it is between two States. At the same time, he acknowledges that it already the law of land that the Supreme Court has discretion.

So, to the effect he's trying to reverse an existing body of case law, that's somewhat activist. But wait! There's more. In that same dissent, Thomas admits that he has applied the law of the land in other dissents! Got that? He's admitting that, depending on how he felt about different cases, he wanted to either apply the discretionary rule or undo the discretionary rule.

For anyone who wants to read the dissent, it's linked below. Citation is Nebraska v. Colorado, 136 S. Ct. 1034 (2016).

I also recommend Thomas and Scalia's dissent in Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437 (1992), where they think that the discretionary rule should have been followed:
We exercise this discretion even with respect to controversies between two or more States, which fall within our original and exclusive jurisdiction.
Linked that one below as well.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/437/

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


Yes, I read the entire statement.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:05 PM
    Reply

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

That's the same link I just gave you.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:29 PM
    Reply

Not sure what to do from here.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


I was just saying I'd read that previously to you posting it


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:33 PM
    Reply

I introduced the Nebraska v Col and Thomas descent and that's where I got it. I didn't get that from Q but don't tell spooneye®, he's kinda sensitive about Q for some reason.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

Re: I was just saying I'd read that previously to you posting it


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:45 PM
    Reply

I am spooneye®. That's who you are talking with now.

OK, so to clarify: I read the case that you mentioned, and then I told you why it's judicial activism, and I linked you to another case to illustrate the point.

Did you understand my answer about why it's judicial activism?

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

If you see everything as liberal and conservative teams, then You Are What's Wrong With America #YAWWWA


I'd read that last sentence as what he wants...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:38 PM
    Reply

he wants the court to explain why the case is ######## rather than just punt it.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

I read the entire sentence.


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:58 PM
    Reply

I bring your attention to this 'we should let this complaint proceed further,' as his opinion on whether or not it should be heard. 'Rather than,' as a conjunction which is properly respective of other conjunction such as 'opposed to, instead of,' and 'sooner than.'

"The complaint, on its face, presents a “controvers[y] between two or more States” that this Court alone has authority to adjudicate. 28 U. S. C. §1251(a). The plaintiff States have alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another State. Whatever the merit of the plaintiff States’ claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave
without so much as a word of explanation."

I so want to say something nasty and dismiss you as easily as you dismiss me.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

Go for it...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:14 PM
    Reply

I don't really get my feelings hurt. It's part of the job.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

Re: Go for it...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:37 PM
    Reply

I also took the last phrase of his descent as a shot at the majority opinion. It sounded like something my grandmother would say. Wait, it sounds like something I would say now. Oh ####, I'm turning into my grandmother.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

I don't think you can read too much into a dissent...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:44 PM
    Reply

as Spooneye pointed out a Justice who suggests on one day that discretion is unfounded will suggest on another that it is imperative. Thus, it does not establish any precedent.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgbadge-ringofhonor-fordprefect.jpg link

Re: I understand the basis of their case, but it seems like they


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 2:06 PM
    Reply

Nebraska v Colorado over pot law was rejected for review but the descent by Alito and Thomas was strong. Since, three of the majority are no longer on the court. That's just about hearing the case though. There's a ton written covering similarities though not many cases to cover. Every article has it's own life so you have to wade through the writer's opinion but those dozen or so I've read have quotes and links to actual cases.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg link

Re: You lawyers on the board, can someone explain to me


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:19 AM
    Reply

I can't really comment from the lawyer perspective, but I am a borderline compulsive gambler. Is that okay? With those credentials with my basic logic, this doesn't help Trump get a 2nd term in any way. Trump is done. Why are people still even "debating" it. It's over.

2021 white level member link

Why go to all of this trouble when this election was

[4]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:25 AM
    Reply

actually a large sting operation to catch the Democrat and the Deep State fraud. Why has the trap not been sprung? Is SCOTUS part of the Deep State and this is part of the plan to expose them as well?

The only thing that is clear is that Trump will be President for life and the succession will follow though his male offspring.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Ivanka's pixxed... Jared's calling Jerusalem...***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 1:52 PM
    Reply



2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: You lawyers on the board, can someone explain to me


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:27 AM
    Reply

only the fake ballots need to be thrown out, and maybe the duplicate votes

military_donation.jpg link

Re: You lawyers on the board, can someone explain to me


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:29 AM
    Reply

so nothing needs to be done and we can quit wasting money and the time of the court

link

And how do you know which ones are fake?***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:33 AM
    Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: And how do you know which ones are fake?***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:37 AM
    Reply

start with the mail in ballots without dates or signatures if they havent been shredded

military_donation.jpg link

And what exactly...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:39 AM
    Reply

Makes a ballot automatically fake if it lacks a signature or date? How many of those ballots are there?

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: And what exactly...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:42 AM
    Reply

votes should be verified, as if you are voting in person, otherwise there is no equal protection

barrett will explain it to you

military_donation.jpg link

So how many...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:47 AM
    Reply

Illegal mail-in ballots were there? Let me guess. Just enough to give Trump the win.

Doesn't look like Barrett is going to explain anything other than how stupid all these lawsuits are.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Mail in ballots don't have signatures

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:57 AM
    Reply

the security envelope they came in does. That was checked twice before being counted then separated.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


^^ This^^***


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 5:20 PM
    Reply



link

The ones that say Biden. Duh!***

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 9:39 AM
    Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link


Fake and duplicate votes have already been


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 11:43 AM
    Reply

thrown out, as they are in every election.

link

Oh yeah? well then why is biden still winning?***

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 11:45 AM
    Reply



2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link


something something "substantive due process"

[1]
Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 3:41 PM
    Reply

something something "the election wasn't fair" something something Texas wants to make everyone have the same election laws as everyone else.

I just listened to Ben Shapiro explain it all, and he basically said its a BS lawsuit.

If somehow this were to work for Trump, we prob are looking at civil war and military lockdowns.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

As the Montana Governor points out...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 5:10 PM
    Reply



If Texas is able to actually win this case (it won't and likely won't even be heard by the Supreme Court) it won't give the election to Trump, it'll just mean chaos. It says something when that's preferable to one side over simply losing an election.

link

Re: As the Montana Governor points out...


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 5:23 PM
    Reply

That’s a silly argument though. People sue specific people or entities that they believe damaged them somehow. Any states are free to challenge Montana as well or even Texas for that matter. That isn’t TX’’s obligation.

This case won’t likely go anywhere but it wouldn’t result in chaos as there’s a process in place in the Constitution. It’s so funny watching some of y’all get so dramatic.

2021 orange level member link

1. The Governor is pointing out the hypocrisy and illogic


Posted: Dec 11, 2020, 6:09 PM
    Reply

used in the Texas case. The point is if Texas' AG really believed he or his state was harmed he would have also sued Montana. He's not saying Texas can't sue, just that it's clear that the reason behind the case is trying to overturn the election result because their guy lost.

If you don't think overturning an election where more than 160 million votes were cast and no evidence has been presented that there was widespread fraud or any reason to throw those votes out, then we live in two different realities and we'll have to agree to disagree. (Although, we at least live in the same reality where we both agree this case will not go anywhere)

link

Replies: 70  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: (2) Section E row Q...$2500 for the pair. Email if interested. Go Tigers!!

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ General Boards - Politics & Religion ]
Start New Topic
787 people have read this post