You tell me. You're the one who said he has been a big Trump loyalist. Why do I have to say what would make him the when I don't think he is? I'm not a lawyer. Is this how lawyering works?
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Thread starter ProdigalHorn
- Start date
LULZ. Going to a public court is authoritarian but spying and using the FBI to enact a silent coup is not. Insane!
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Let's do a quick review
You wrote "Andrew McCarthy .. has been a big Trump loyalist"
I read that, immediately replied it was factually untrue and within 1m showed you the proof - his own admission.
And so now you are saying "other than the fact that McCarthy has not been a big Trump loyalist" he has always been a big Trump loyalist?
You should be on CNN, they love this style of logic
You can become a loyalist after seeing evidence. But nitpick the semantics all you want. The guy has been very pro-Trump for a long time.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Not usually how "loyalty" works
When?
Sure it does, because loyalty is usually earned. It's not arbitrary.
Just wondering what your opinion or logic is.
Right. Wanting the incredibly bizarre middle of the night irregularities that occurred explained is not wanting to win at all costs. Funny that the Dems aren't characterized the same way. Why aren't they criticized for not wanting these questions answered and just putting them off to wacky Trump sycophants? If no shenanigans occurred, what's the issue with transparency? But, only we Trump supporters seemingly exhibit a win at all costs mentality.
That from someone who doesn't know a basic Blue Brothers reference.
I too questioned how the votes came in over 90% for Biden in the middle of the night. There was some talk about mail-ins being predominantly Democrat versus Republican votes that were in person. There was talk about the timing of counting (walk-ins were counted first). I have no idea if that's true or not.
But what does the pleading to the Supreme Court actually say? IS THERE DIRECT EVIDENCE or just discussions that the numbers seem weird?
But you are doing nice lawyer tricks here and turning this back on me. You are the one who claimed McCarthy is a Trump loyalist, so his supposed dismantling, I couldn't see the link behind the paywall, of the Texas suit was evidence that it is really frivolous. I mean, being the big Trump loyalist, it must have really pained him to write that.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It's not the legal machinations that concern me. Trump is afforded that under law. The quality of his and allies legal maneuvers are absurd but that his right.
It's the calls to state legislators leaning on them to overturn the election. It's the personal calls to Brian Kemp demanding he call a special session. It's the reported call to the GA AG asking him not to recruit support for the defense against the laughable TX suit. None of that is normal behavior from a POTUS that cares about election integrity or respect for the office itself. "Election integrity" doesn't mean manipulation of our election system to be "declared" the winner by a legislative or judicial body.
Keep in mind that with all the lawsuits (1-53 and counting) only 2 fraudulent votes have been uncovered and they were both Republicans in PA. There are other investigations but those are the only charges so far.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I am telling you, résumé to CNN now, dont wait. They are hungry for this stuff, and pay much better. Why sell yourself short just posting on the WM? Visualize success by imagining a "Deez Nuts and Toobin" show in your future. I would watch (as long as its not on Zoom)
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I lost track of how many joined as parties and who just wants to file a brief. IMO all the states affected (27?) should join as plaintiffs. That would be more powerful. Even if it fails (it is a bit of a longshot), Roberts would have to wear it forever.
I did see the Campaign sought to join as a party (I think) but not sure if that is possible in this type of action
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The thing about this suit is that its mostly new ideas. They, of course, attempted to find cases to dig into (I posted the brief above) but there is nothing directly on point. Its all new. It's a clever theory, IMO, and Paxton should be applauded. I also, of course, love the idea of them attempting to force the Court to consider the EP hook. That part is so beautiful, it almost made me cry. I also still think the Article II legal issue I wrote many paragraphs about above (to the notice of no one, lol) could be a winner if they can figure out a way to get to it. I bet even Roberts agrees, but my guess is that he will be too worried about the reaction to let it be fully heard.
Admittedly, it's a long shot but I am glad they did it. Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh are probably willing to entertain argument. I hope that happens and, if so, that it gets an exception to allow network coverage. A sitting US senator for the plaintiffs (who are basically half the country) before the SCOTUS. That would be so great. The country deserves the chance to see that. This case could decide whether this whole country is jumping off the deep end into socialism. Show it Roberts! Do it for history's sake. That way, 20 years from now, when we are either trying to still dig ourselves from under a Depression or perhaps working in a Chinese gulag slave camp, we will know who to blame -- "KAGAN!" will supplant Capt Kirk's "KHAN!" as the pet phrase in the work camps.
If they did allow television, can you imagine what a funny situation that would put CNN in as they try to figure out whether to let all their sensitive people see it? Hopefully we still have a hot mic on Zucker for that discussion too.
Admittedly, it's a long shot but I am glad they did it. Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh are probably willing to entertain argument. I hope that happens and, if so, that it gets an exception to allow network coverage. A sitting US senator for the plaintiffs (who are basically half the country) before the SCOTUS. That would be so great. The country deserves the chance to see that. This case could decide whether this whole country is jumping off the deep end into socialism. Show it Roberts! Do it for history's sake. That way, 20 years from now, when we are either trying to still dig ourselves from under a Depression or perhaps working in a Chinese gulag slave camp, we will know who to blame -- "KAGAN!" will supplant Capt Kirk's "KHAN!" as the pet phrase in the work camps.
If they did allow television, can you imagine what a funny situation that would put CNN in as they try to figure out whether to let all their sensitive people see it? Hopefully we still have a hot mic on Zucker for that discussion too.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
He is going to try but I dont think he can intervene as a party in this unique type of case where the SCOTUS will be the court of first impression (but i admit i have not read their pleading)
Which is too bad because his presence as a party would eliminate the 'lack of standing' issue
They will probably let the Campaign file a brief, but that's it
Last edited:
The trick (whether it's lawyerly or not) is ignoring the merits of the argument and pissing around with whether the author meets your definition of "loyalist." It's a diversion. Here's the full article.
Texas's Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
December 9, 2020 4:28
There is no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEThe first thing to notice about Texas’s desperation lawsuit, which seeks to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, is what does not appear on the front page: the name of the state’s solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins.
The lawsuit is brought against four other states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — that have certified Joe Biden as the winner of their electoral votes. Thus, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton invokes the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to hear disputes between states. Yet the brief is not signed by the lawyer who typically represents Texas before that nation’s highest court (as Solicitor General Hawkins did, for example, in the recent Obamacare case).
Plainly, this is because the complaint Paxton has filed is a political document that has no prospect of being taken seriously as a set of legal claims.
There is a lot to be said for Texas’s complaints as a political polemic. It is true that Democrats labor mightily to undermine election integrity. The only rational reason for that is to make it easier for legally unqualified people to cast ballots, and to cast in bulk — and under the influence of progressive activists — the ballots of people who would not otherwise have voted (and whose qualifications may be dubious). It is also true that mail-in voting on a massive scale, favored by Democrats, creates tremendous potential for fraud. This potential is inevitably realized in at least some fraud when coupled with other policies Democrats aggressively push — e.g., the weakening of identification, signature-verification, and witness requirements. It is also true that Democrat-dominated executive officials, courts, and bureaucracies presume broad authority to deviate from the terms of legislatively enacted election laws, under the guise of administering those laws.
All of these matters should be addressed by Congress, and by state lawmakers. Not a single one of them, however, gives the state of Texas standing to sue other states over the manner in which those states enforce (or refrain from enforcing) their laws.
This does not mean the flouting of election laws by officials in Pennsylvania and other states is not a serious issue. It means that if Texas wants to raise that issue, the Supreme Court is not the right forum. To repeat a point I’ve made before, the Court did not grant review of a case from Pennsylvania that it should have taken, involving a narrow, critical issue of constitutional law pertaining to elections, when that issue was raised by parties in the commonwealth who were directly affected. The justices are not going to have the slightest interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state — one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court into the thick of electoral politics.
I doubt the Court will say anything other than that leave to file Texas’s complaint is denied. In the unlikely event of elaboration, the justices may convey that if Texas has a problem with the way other states administer elections, it should address that through the political process, including through Texas’s large and influential delegation of elected officials in Congress. Such a complaint is not the business of lawsuits . . . unless you’re ready for tomorrow’s lawsuit by, say, California and New York against Texas for trying to disenfranchise its citizens; or the countersuit by Pennsylvania et al. over Texas’s intrusion in affairs over which the Constitution recognizes their sovereignty, such as the manner of conducting elections.
If Texas’s theory is right, then every state now has standing to sue every other state over the latter’s administration of its own laws in connection with its own citizens if it can articulate some collateral consequence that may affect the allegedly injured state in some way. I have a hard time believing that the “Don’t Mess with Texas” State will want to live in the world that its attorney general proposes to create.
In point of fact, every claim raised in Texas’s complaint has already been rejected by other courts; in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in two cases, here and here) and the federal district court in Pennsylvania (here).
Texas’s principal claim, for example, is that by administering the election in a way that deviated from their states’ laws, election officials in the defendant states usurped the authority of their state legislatures, in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2). The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing? Not surprisingly, the rambling discussion of standing principles in Paxton’s brief cites no case holding that a state has standing to challenge another state’s administration of an election.
All Our Opinion in Your Inbox
NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.
Texas further claims, on a Bush v. Gore theory, that its citizens’ equal-protection rights have been trampled by the four defendant states’ alleged counting of ballots submitted by unqualified voters. But our Constitution does not provide for a national election — much to the chagrin of blue states that would like to eradicate the Electoral College. We have state elections for president. To the extent that the citizens of Texas have a right to vote, it is given to them not by the Constitution but by their state legislature, and it is a right to vote for a candidate to be awarded Texas’s electoral votes, not those of other states.
Furthermore, the “diminished weight” theory of equal protection (i.e., that counting illegal votes disenfranchises lawful voters) has repeatedly been rejected when posited by citizens within the state where the unlawful voting takes place; the theory is even weaker across state lines. As the Third Circuit has emphasized, “Bush v. Gore does not federalize every jot and tittle of state election law.”
Texas’s substantive due-process claim may be even more fatuous. To repeat, even the citizens of a state where election-law violations allegedly occurred do not have a general, judicially enforceable right to force election officials to comply with state law. They must show a concrete, particularized, non-speculative injury. Even less do states have a right to make other states comply with the latter’s own laws. Texas has no standing to sue, say, Michigan over the failure of Michigan officials to comply with Michigan law, to the alleged detriment of Michigan’s citizens.
Finally, in its proposed lawsuit, Texas does exactly what the Third Circuit, in Trump for President v. Secretary, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, recently said a litigant may not do. It waited until the eleventh hour to file (beyond that, actually — the complaint was not submitted until after midnight on the federal safe-harbor day). It pleads conclusory allegations (including some, such as mentions of Dominion software, that are plainly included for atmospheric effect, unconnected to any claim for relief). It posits claims that have already been litigated and lost by parties that, unlike Texas, had some cognizable interests. And it seeks unprecedented, drastic relief — the undoing of other states’ elections and disenfranchisement of their citizens; the invocation of the Court’s purported “remedial authority” to order a new “special” election in those states; the vacating of the certification of electors by those states, and the barring of those states from voting in the Electoral College — without citing any case in which the courts have found such breathtaking authority to exist, much less exercised it.
Already under indictment for securities fraud, Attorney General Paxton is currently caught up in yet another corruption investigation — one that has roiled his office. Now, he has filed a lawsuit so frivolous and so blatantly political that the top appellate lawyers in his office evidently declined to endorse it. To be clear, though, this does not mean questions about election-law improprieties are frivolous.
Federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes. If Texas’s elected representatives, or those of any other state, object to the counting of any state’s electoral votes, Congress will hear, debate, and vote on those objections at that point — mindful of what such disputes may portend for comity between the states. There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit. There is also no way, I suspect, that Paxton doesn’t know that.
As pertains to slippery slope, there are not THAT many issues taken upon by a State Legislature that directly impact federal operations. Taxes at the State level don't impact federal operations, except when it comes to the bailouts that the blue States always seem to want and demand because they cannot properly manage their own jurisdictions.
Rare is the instance that you have something like CARB that impacts the other 49 in the manner that the end-arounds from the election have caused. This election cycle and the changing of rules in manners contrary to State law in some jurisdictions DID directly impact the other 49. And the long term impacts of the election are going to negatively impact the majority of citizens far more than the tentacles of CARB did.
Rare is the instance that you have something like CARB that impacts the other 49 in the manner that the end-arounds from the election have caused. This election cycle and the changing of rules in manners contrary to State law in some jurisdictions DID directly impact the other 49. And the long term impacts of the election are going to negatively impact the majority of citizens far more than the tentacles of CARB did.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Disagree with this part, if there is an Article II issue then this is the appropriate forum. It might not be the right way to get there, but it is the correct court
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Fair point but how does Texas overcome the standing issue here?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Good idea, just like Biden voters did
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The brief again, if anyone is interested
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ef of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ef of Missouri et al. - Final with Tables.pdf
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
All 4 of the Kraken lawsuits in Federal Court have now been dismissed although Powell has verbally committed to appealing them all.
The Arizona Federal judge wrote: "Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings"
Let that sink in for a moment. All the claims of irregularities boil down to "gossip and innuendo" in a court of law. That is why Trump and his allies are 1-55 in court.
Election law isn't my specialty and I have not read the pleadings...I could envision the effort being made that the pledges to unwind wall funding and rollback immigration laws such that there is virtually unfettered access to the Great State of Texas by virtue of the improper actions of the named States creates a situation such that Texas bears a disparate impact BY those actions, thus depriving the Great State of Texas of equal protection.
Whether they can make that fly...don't know. But immigration is CLEARLY an area in which Biden's professed Day One practices WILL harm the State. And that is a harm that would not, in all likelihood, occur but for the procedural irregularities in the four named States.
Secondary arguments could be made based upon the stated claims to essentially do away with the oil industries, thus displacing citizens and an economy, again, based upon the procedural irregularities.
I can't wait to see how the resident libs will tear that apart for no good reason and argue that this things would not harm Texas.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
