Trump's Coup d'état. - Page 45

slyjoe · 11th December 2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Soon, soon.

Two weeks, please?

Random · 11th December 2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

SO, basically, the Court tells Trump to take a hike.
Not surprised.
I do nonto agrree with the politics of the SC court conservatives, and will give them hell on some of the decisions they make, but I don;t think they are evil facists.

No, they are evil fascists, but they are smart enough to follow the old dictum, "You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once." If there was a actual legal question or questions that would determine the outcome of the election, they would vote for Trump in a heartbeat. But this ball of unverifiable fraud nonsense and a legal argument that the Supreme Court should throw out an election if Republicans disagree with the outcome is a bridge too far. They know that ruling in favor of Trump in a case like that would rob them of any apparent legitimacy, and quite quickly, any relevance.

pgwenthold · 11th December 2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by turingtest

Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this.

Yep. I noted that, too. None of his appointees had anything to say. Even the 2 "dissents" were Alito/Thomas (and they weren't really dissenting on the merits)

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by eerok

Good enough

I think it's important to say things like this out loud.

I get it. I agree with your sentiment.

This suit like so many others were crap. It's ridiculous that any of these cases saw the inside of a courtroom let alone being considered to some degree by the highest court in the land.

Monday the Electoral College convenes.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

In other words, Texas hasn't made a claim that makes any sense.

It's not so much the claim as it is that they failed to prove they were damaged in some way that justifies their right to sue another state. That is they failed to prove standing. Texas also requested extraordinary relief that was never going to be granted.

Alito and Thomas basically said you have standing as that is guaranteed in their reading of the Constitution. That said, even though we feel you are entitled to argue your case, we wouldn't have granted you the temporary relief you sought.

I also see the court not only denied their request for leave to file on standing but on the fact that the case is moot.

cosmicaug · 11th December 2020, 05:31 PM

More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45.

https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/statu...49111155953664

Skeptic Ginger · 11th December 2020, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Rejected by SCOTUS, per FOX news.

And per Cokie Roberts on NPR.

Skeptic Ginger · 11th December 2020, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

... The only question what was Barrett going to do, and she went with the others.

I don't know why anyone thinks the Stepford Wife religious fanatic has shown any tendency toward being a Trump sycophant.

OTOH, I'm not so sure about Rapey McRapeface.

dudalb · 11th December 2020, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45.

https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/statu...49111155953664

"Texas GOP chair says in light of Supreme Court tossing out Texas case, "Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

The gentleman in my avatar wants to remind the Texas GOP chairman of how it turned out last time Texas and it's fellow Confederate States tried that.....

And I can see the Ghost of Abraham Lincoln doing a Ghost Of Christmas Yet To Come on this moron; I am sure Old Abe does not like the idea of a republican state chairman advocating secession...

Skeptic Ginger · 11th December 2020, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45.

https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/statu...49111155953664

I'm going to offer a guess that he's worried he won't get his pardon unless he stays on the extremist side of the fence.

I don't think we'll see a Tweet storm until he retires to his throne for his nightly evacuation.

dudalb · 11th December 2020, 05:48 PM

DP.

pgwenthold · 11th December 2020, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't know why anyone thinks the Stepford Wife religious fanatic has shown any tendency toward being a Trump sycophant.

OTOH, I'm not so sure about Rapey McRapeface.

It's not that. It's about the whole "does the court have to hear any case brought before it by the states." Alito and Thomas have a history where they say yes. Kavanaugh has actually been faced with the situation and has said no. Barrett does not have any judicial history on the question, so it was not clear what direction she would go.

It's not about being a Trump sycophant, it's about that jurisdictional question.

varwoche · 11th December 2020, 05:57 PM

��
How deep is your state
How deep is your state
I really mean to learn

SCOTUS, Barr, PA Supremes, WI Supremes, GA Supremes, AZ Supremes, NV Supremes, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Gov Kemp, Geraldo (who Trump has ghosted)

cosmicaug · 11th December 2020, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm going to offer a guess that he's worried he won't get his pardon unless he stays on the extremist side of the fence.

Is Allen West being charged with anything?

Skeptic Ginger · 11th December 2020, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It's not that. It's about the whole "does the court have to hear any case brought before it by the states." Alito and Thomas have a history where they say yes. Kavanaugh has actually been faced with the situation and has said no. Barrett does not have any judicial history on the question, so it was not clear what direction she would go.

It's not about being a Trump sycophant, it's about that jurisdictional question.

I see.

dudalb · 11th December 2020, 06:15 PM

Best comment:

The Kraken has Kroaked.

DevilsAdvocate · 11th December 2020, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I also see the court not only denied their request for leave to file on standing but on the fact that the case is moot.

No. They are saying that the other pending motions are moot. All those motions to intervene and motions to file an amicus brief. Those pending motions are moot because the Court isn't going to hear the case.

Minoosh · 11th December 2020, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by turingtest

Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this.

Maybe he'll vow to appeal

DevilsAdvocate · 11th December 2020, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would thereforegrant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

That is what I expected. I thought they might write a longer opinion on why Texas doesn't have standing, but a terse denial is not unexpected.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 06:41 PM

What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot.

SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him.

Is he going to concede or continue this silly game?

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

No. They are saying that the other pending motions are moot. All those motions to intervene and motions to file an amicus brief. Those pending motions are moot because the Court isn't going to hear the case.

Thank you.

cosmicaug · 11th December 2020, 06:44 PM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...054215682.html

Quote:

64% is a staggering number. Consider: Who runs for office and who retires in the coming years? Who ascends into leadership or moves to higher office? Easy to imagine pro-democracy folks opting out and anti-democracy folks opting in to an extent that people are not grasping.

And how many of these are only mounting federalism objections? Not all 70 actually oppose contesting the election; some are just objecting to the means by which the suit attempts to do so

Only 25% of retirees are signing compared to 69% of those staying.

Put another way, 21% of the House Republicans who haven't signed on are retiring. Now compound that over a few cycles if this continues.

The leopard face eating may already be starting. Horrific.

They only disown the results when they lose, which is exactly the problem. (Agree it's nonsensical.)

DevilsAdvocate · 11th December 2020, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by turingtest

Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this.

Because Barrett is the new kid on the block, previous Order Lists have indicated cases where Barrett did not participate. No such designation on this List. So presumably all the Justices participated. I would be very surprised if they did not.

eerok · 11th December 2020, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot.

SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him.

Is he going to concede or continue this silly game?

I think he'll see no personal advantage in conceding, so he won't do it. All he's got is his fantasy life, really, and it's still unrolling in his head. It's just a weird fluke that he got to play some of it out on the American political stage.

Minoosh · 11th December 2020, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot.

SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him.

Is he going to concede or continue this silly game?

I can't even imagine how he will process this. It just doesn't compute, in his universe. But then, even he must have realized this was a very long shot.

To keep the money rolling in, he'll have to come up with some new patter.

I literally hang up on him every day.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

That's exactly right. And once again, Thomas prefers to tag along with Alito and stay in the background, never voicing his own opinion.

Thomas is really the most pathetic excuse for a Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. While I despised Alito, Rehnquist, Scalia and a few other judges, at least they made a few intelligible decisions or arguments. Thomas has asked maybe two questions during oral arguments since he was appointed and I'm unaware of any decisions he has authored.

Tero · 11th December 2020, 07:06 PM

Electors will vote monday. Then nothing, till Jan 6. Votes counted. Congress can take votes, but the Senate will not overturn the election. Romney, Sasse et al. will not go on the Trump side.

gnome · 11th December 2020, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Thomas is really the most pathetic excuse for a Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. While I despised Alito, Rehnquist, Scalia and a few other judges, at least they made a few intelligible decisions or arguments. Thomas has asked maybe two questions during oral arguments since he was appointed and I'm unaware of any decisions he has authored.

There are some... and one of particular note: ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. That's the one that struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act. He may be a blind squirrel, but it is also definitely a valuable nut.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by eerok

I think he'll see no personal advantage in conceding, so he won't do it. All he's got is his fantasy life, really, and it's still unrolling in his head. It's just a weird fluke that he got to play some of it out on the American political stage.

I don't see him conceding. It's not in his nature. Kinda hard to keep asking for money to mount legal challenges though. People are going to stop caring because his impotence is showing.

The EC cast their votes on Monday and I'm pretty sure it's not by secret ballot.

Still, I've seen on Twitter that Trump will say that China interfered in our election so the election is invalid and by Executive Order Trump will remain POTUS. Some his supporters are encouraging this and think this is what is going to happen.

eerok · 11th December 2020, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Still, I've seen on Twitter that Trump will say that China interfered in our election so the election is invalid and by Executive Order Trump will remain POTUS. Some his supporters are encouraging this and think this is what is going to happen.

That's hitting the dregs of the opium pipe, of course. Pure delusion on their part.

Trump will never manage to declare himself king.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

There are some... and one of particular note: ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. That's the one that struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act. He may be a blind squirrel, but it is also definitely a valuable nut.

Unless my information is wrong Thomas didn't write an opinion in that case although he did side with the more Liberal wing of the court.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, J., joined.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by eerok

That's hitting the dregs of the opium pipe, of course. Pure delusion on their part.

Trump will never manage to declare himself king.

I don't think so either. Wishful thinking is more like it. Trump has run out of options. Now I don't see him ever acting dignified, but the writing is on the wall. The futility has to be dawning on him.

He is 56 and 1 in court rulings. I think there are two more outstanding cases out there, but they tooi are destined to lose like the rest of them. Any political wrangling is also pretty damn futile.

JoeMorgue · 11th December 2020, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

He is 56 and 1 in court rulings.

And if I recall the "1" in that 56/1 was a fairly minor piece of procedural compliance with no real effect on anything.

(Wasn't it there one where got poll watchers to stand like foot closer or something to that effect?)

Athyrio · 11th December 2020, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't think so either. Wishful thinking is more like it. Trump has run out of options. Now I don't see him ever acting dignified, but the writing is on the wall. The futility has to be dawning on him.

He is 56 and 1 in court rulings. I think there are two more outstanding cases out there, but they tooi are destined to lose like the rest of them. Any political wrangling is also pretty damn futile.

Any idea how many of these court cases that Trump is on the financial hook for?

Horatius · 11th December 2020, 07:53 PM

"He is 56 and 1 in court rulings." Has there ever been a judicial controversy that was so comprehensively lost as this? Anywhere in the world?

Trump may be the losingest loser who ever lost, as a matter of public record.

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And if I recall the "1" in that 56/1 was a fairly minor piece of procedural compliance with no real effect on anything.

(Wasn't it there one where got poll watchers to stand like foot closer or something to that effect?)

No, that was overturned by the PA State Supreme Court. The one he won involved the number of days that a ballot could be cured in PA. It was a 3 day difference. I think it amounted to just a few ballots.

pgwenthold · 11th December 2020, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And if I recall the "1" in that 56/1 was a fairly minor piece of procedural compliance with no real effect on anything.

(Wasn't it there one where got poll watchers to stand like foot closer or something to that effect?)

Nppe, that got overturned by the appeals court.

The one win was in PA where they got the deadline for curing mail-in ballots with errors moved from Nov 12 to Nov 9.

It was a real win, that affected something like 65 ballots

Only those mail in ballots that had errors that weren't cured on or before Nov 9 that the voter wanted to fix.

pgwenthold · 11th December 2020, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

No, that was overturned by the PA State Supreme Court. The one he won involved the number of days that a ballot could be cured in PA. It was a 3 day difference. I think it amounted to just a few ballots.

I've heard 65, but I think that's "possible." The only solid number I heard was 0 in Alleghany County

acbytesla · 11th December 2020, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Athyrio

Any idea how many of these court cases that Trump is on the financial hook for?

Probably none. The campaign/legal fund paid for them.

Horatius · 11th December 2020, 07:57 PM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Repost often!

11th December 2020, 05:05 PM	#1761
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,597	Originally Posted by alfaniner Soon, soon. Two weeks, please?
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

11th December 2020, 05:05 PM	#1762
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,229	Originally Posted by dudalb SO, basically, the Court tells Trump to take a hike. Not surprised. I do nonto agrree with the politics of the SC court conservatives, and will give them hell on some of the decisions they make, but I don;t think they are evil facists. No, they are evil fascists, but they are smart enough to follow the old dictum, "You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once." If there was a actual legal question or questions that would determine the outcome of the election, they would vote for Trump in a heartbeat. But this ball of unverifiable fraud nonsense and a legal argument that the Supreme Court should throw out an election if Republicans disagree with the outcome is a bridge too far. They know that ruling in favor of Trump in a case like that would rob them of any apparent legitimacy, and quite quickly, any relevance.
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,229	__________________ "...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"

11th December 2020, 05:05 PM	#1763
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,229	Originally Posted by turingtest Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this. Yep. I noted that, too. None of his appointees had anything to say. Even the 2 "dissents" were Alito/Thomas (and they weren't really dissenting on the merits)
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

11th December 2020, 05:08 PM	#1764
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by eerok Good enough I think it's important to say things like this out loud. I get it. I agree with your sentiment. This suit like so many others were crap. It's ridiculous that any of these cases saw the inside of a courtroom let alone being considered to some degree by the highest court in the land. Monday the Electoral College convenes.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 05:20 PM	#1765
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by pgwenthold In other words, Texas hasn't made a claim that makes any sense. It's not so much the claim as it is that they failed to prove they were damaged in some way that justifies their right to sue another state. That is they failed to prove standing. Texas also requested extraordinary relief that was never going to be granted. Alito and Thomas basically said you have standing as that is guaranteed in their reading of the Constitution. That said, even though we feel you are entitled to argue your case, we wouldn't have granted you the temporary relief you sought. I also see the court not only denied their request for leave to file on standing but on the fact that the case is moot.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 11th December 2020 at 05:47 PM.

11th December 2020, 05:31 PM	#1766
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,465	More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45. https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/statu...49111155953664
	__________________ -- August Pamplona Last edited by cosmicaug; 11th December 2020 at 05:31 PM. Reason: Used opposite word

11th December 2020, 05:36 PM	#1767
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,968	Originally Posted by AJM8125 Rejected by SCOTUS, per FOX news. And per Cokie Roberts on NPR.

11th December 2020, 05:43 PM	#1768
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,968	Originally Posted by pgwenthold ... The only question what was Barrett going to do, and she went with the others. I don't know why anyone thinks the Stepford Wife religious fanatic has shown any tendency toward being a Trump sycophant. OTOH, I'm not so sure about Rapey McRapeface.

11th December 2020, 05:46 PM	#1769
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,643	Originally Posted by cosmicaug More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45. https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/statu...49111155953664 "Texas GOP chair says in light of Supreme Court tossing out Texas case, "Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” The gentleman in my avatar wants to remind the Texas GOP chairman of how it turned out last time Texas and it's fellow Confederate States tried that..... And I can see the Ghost of Abraham Lincoln doing a Ghost Of Christmas Yet To Come on this moron; I am sure Old Abe does not like the idea of a republican state chairman advocating secession...
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. Last edited by dudalb; 11th December 2020 at 05:49 PM.

11th December 2020, 05:46 PM	#1770
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,968	Originally Posted by cosmicaug More posturing to inflame Trump & his #Cult45. https://twitter.com/BenjaminEW/statu...49111155953664 I'm going to offer a guess that he's worried he won't get his pardon unless he stays on the extremist side of the fence. I don't think we'll see a Tweet storm until he retires to his throne for his nightly evacuation.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th December 2020 at 06:09 PM.

11th December 2020, 05:48 PM	#1771
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,643	DP.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

11th December 2020, 05:48 PM	#1772
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,229	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I don't know why anyone thinks the Stepford Wife religious fanatic has shown any tendency toward being a Trump sycophant. OTOH, I'm not so sure about Rapey McRapeface. It's not that. It's about the whole "does the court have to hear any case brought before it by the states." Alito and Thomas have a history where they say yes. Kavanaugh has actually been faced with the situation and has said no. Barrett does not have any judicial history on the question, so it was not clear what direction she would go. It's not about being a Trump sycophant, it's about that jurisdictional question.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

11th December 2020, 05:57 PM	#1773
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 15,468	�� How deep is your state How deep is your state I really mean to learn SCOTUS, Barr, PA Supremes, WI Supremes, GA Supremes, AZ Supremes, NV Supremes, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Gov Kemp, Geraldo (who Trump has ghosted)
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot. Last edited by varwoche; 11th December 2020 at 05:58 PM.

11th December 2020, 06:06 PM	#1774
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,465	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'm going to offer a guess that he's worried he won't get his pardon unless he stays on the extremist side of the fence. Is Allen West being charged with anything?
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

11th December 2020, 06:10 PM	#1775
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 87,968	Originally Posted by pgwenthold It's not that. It's about the whole "does the court have to hear any case brought before it by the states." Alito and Thomas have a history where they say yes. Kavanaugh has actually been faced with the situation and has said no. Barrett does not have any judicial history on the question, so it was not clear what direction she would go. It's not about being a Trump sycophant, it's about that jurisdictional question. I see.

11th December 2020, 06:15 PM	#1776
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,643	Best comment: The Kraken has Kroaked.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

11th December 2020, 06:32 PM	#1777
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,630	Originally Posted by acbytesla I also see the court not only denied their request for leave to file on standing but on the fact that the case is moot. No. They are saying that the other pending motions are moot. All those motions to intervene and motions to file an amicus brief. Those pending motions are moot because the Court isn't going to hear the case.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

11th December 2020, 06:33 PM	#1778
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,342	Originally Posted by turingtest Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this. Maybe he'll vow to appeal

11th December 2020, 06:40 PM	#1779
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,630	Originally Posted by acbytesla The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would thereforegrant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. That is what I expected. I thought they might write a longer opinion on why Texas doesn't have standing, but a terse denial is not unexpected.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

11th December 2020, 06:41 PM	#1780
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	What is Donald's next move? What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot. SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him. Is he going to concede or continue this silly game?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 06:43 PM	#1781
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate No. They are saying that the other pending motions are moot. All those motions to intervene and motions to file an amicus brief. Those pending motions are moot because the Court isn't going to hear the case. Thank you.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 06:44 PM	#1782
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,465	https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...054215682.html Quote: 64% is a staggering number. Consider: Who runs for office and who retires in the coming years? Who ascends into leadership or moves to higher office? Easy to imagine pro-democracy folks opting out and anti-democracy folks opting in to an extent that people are not grasping. And how many of these are only mounting federalism objections? Not all 70 actually oppose contesting the election; some are just objecting to the means by which the suit attempts to do so Only 25% of retirees are signing compared to 69% of those staying. Put another way, 21% of the House Republicans who haven't signed on are retiring. Now compound that over a few cycles if this continues. The leopard face eating may already be starting. Horrific. They only disown the results when they lose, which is exactly the problem. (Agree it's nonsensical.)
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

11th December 2020, 06:47 PM	#1783
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,630	Originally Posted by turingtest Including, presumably, the three he put there. I cannot wait to see how he reacts to this. Because Barrett is the new kid on the block, previous Order Lists have indicated cases where Barrett did not participate. No such designation on this List. So presumably all the Justices participated. I would be very surprised if they did not.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

11th December 2020, 06:47 PM	#1784
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 3,715	Originally Posted by acbytesla What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot. SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him. Is he going to concede or continue this silly game? I think he'll see no personal advantage in conceding, so he won't do it. All he's got is his fantasy life, really, and it's still unrolling in his head. It's just a weird fluke that he got to play some of it out on the American political stage.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde Last edited by eerok; 11th December 2020 at 06:48 PM.

11th December 2020, 06:52 PM	#1785
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,342	Originally Posted by acbytesla What does Donnie do now? The vote is Monday. Trump can get no relief from the courts. Any election challenges now will result in the courts declaring them moot. SCOTUS just squashed his fantasy that just because he appointed 3 of the judges that it was going to save him. Is he going to concede or continue this silly game? I can't even imagine how he will process this. It just doesn't compute, in his universe. But then, even he must have realized this was a very long shot. To keep the money rolling in, he'll have to come up with some new patter. I literally hang up on him every day.
	Last edited by Minoosh; 11th December 2020 at 06:53 PM. Reason: tinkering

11th December 2020, 07:01 PM	#1786
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by slyjoe That's exactly right. And once again, Thomas prefers to tag along with Alito and stay in the background, never voicing his own opinion. Thomas is really the most pathetic excuse for a Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. While I despised Alito, Rehnquist, Scalia and a few other judges, at least they made a few intelligible decisions or arguments. Thomas has asked maybe two questions during oral arguments since he was appointed and I'm unaware of any decisions he has authored.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 07:06 PM	#1787
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,217	Electors will vote monday. Then nothing, till Jan 6. Votes counted. Congress can take votes, but the Senate will not overturn the election. Romney, Sasse et al. will not go on the Trump side.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

11th December 2020, 07:08 PM	#1788
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,287	Originally Posted by acbytesla Thomas is really the most pathetic excuse for a Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. While I despised Alito, Rehnquist, Scalia and a few other judges, at least they made a few intelligible decisions or arguments. Thomas has asked maybe two questions during oral arguments since he was appointed and I'm unaware of any decisions he has authored. There are some... and one of particular note: ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. That's the one that struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act. He may be a blind squirrel, but it is also definitely a valuable nut.
	__________________

11th December 2020, 07:12 PM	#1789
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by eerok I think he'll see no personal advantage in conceding, so he won't do it. All he's got is his fantasy life, really, and it's still unrolling in his head. It's just a weird fluke that he got to play some of it out on the American political stage. I don't see him conceding. It's not in his nature. Kinda hard to keep asking for money to mount legal challenges though. People are going to stop caring because his impotence is showing. The EC cast their votes on Monday and I'm pretty sure it's not by secret ballot. Still, I've seen on Twitter that Trump will say that China interfered in our election so the election is invalid and by Executive Order Trump will remain POTUS. Some his supporters are encouraging this and think this is what is going to happen.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 07:20 PM	#1790
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 3,715	Originally Posted by acbytesla Still, I've seen on Twitter that Trump will say that China interfered in our election so the election is invalid and by Executive Order Trump will remain POTUS. Some his supporters are encouraging this and think this is what is going to happen. That's hitting the dregs of the opium pipe, of course. Pure delusion on their part. Trump will never manage to declare himself king.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde Last edited by eerok; 11th December 2020 at 07:27 PM.

11th December 2020, 07:29 PM	#1791
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by gnome There are some... and one of particular note: ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. That's the one that struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act. He may be a blind squirrel, but it is also definitely a valuable nut. Unless my information is wrong Thomas didn't write an opinion in that case although he did side with the more Liberal wing of the court. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, J., joined.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 07:38 PM	#1792
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,595	Originally Posted by eerok That's hitting the dregs of the opium pipe, of course. Pure delusion on their part. Trump will never manage to declare himself king. I don't think so either. Wishful thinking is more like it. Trump has run out of options. Now I don't see him ever acting dignified, but the writing is on the wall. The futility has to be dawning on him. He is 56 and 1 in court rulings. I think there are two more outstanding cases out there, but they tooi are destined to lose like the rest of them. Any political wrangling is also pretty damn futile.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

11th December 2020, 07:44 PM	#1793
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,635	Originally Posted by acbytesla He is 56 and 1 in court rulings. And if I recall the "1" in that 56/1 was a fairly minor piece of procedural compliance with no real effect on anything. (Wasn't it there one where got poll watchers to stand like foot closer or something to that effect?)
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

11th December 2020, 07:50 PM	#1794
Athyrio Hipster Doofus Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Nutsack, FL Posts: 2,196	Originally Posted by acbytesla I don't think so either. Wishful thinking is more like it. Trump has run out of options. Now I don't see him ever acting dignified, but the writing is on the wall. The futility has to be dawning on him. He is 56 and 1 in court rulings. I think there are two more outstanding cases out there, but they tooi are destined to lose like the rest of them. Any political wrangling is also pretty damn futile. Any idea how many of these court cases that Trump is on the financial hook for?
	__________________ Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber

11th December 2020, 07:53 PM	#1795
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,171	"He is 56 and 1 in court rulings." Has there ever been a judicial controversy that was so comprehensively lost as this? Anywhere in the world? Trump may be the losingest loser who ever lost, as a matter of public record.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd