Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[Xzi]

I personally see "our vote is compromised by their vote, because we followed the constitution and they did not" as a valid contention. Saying it's none of their business could be something SCOTUS says. But the election is Federal, so...

The constitution specifies that elections are run by the states. The only unconstitutional thing to come from this election is Trump's sad attempt at a coup.

 

[tabzer]

The constitution specifies that elections are run by the states. The only unconstitutional thing to come from this election is Trump's sad attempt at a coup.

So you are saying, that even if SCOTUS agrees, and that these states violated their own legislature, and/or the constitution... that the outcome is a successful coup by Trump?

 

[Foxi4]

Do my eyes deceive me? Liberals fighting for states' rights? Am I having a stroke? Am I... Am I dead?

 

[djpannda]

Do my eyes deceive me? Liberals fighting for states' rights? Am I having a stroke? Am I... Am I dead?

yea if anyone dig up a bit of info the Texas AG is being investigated for some serious crimes (by other Republicans) so it does feel like he phishing for a pardon "see President Trump, I fought for you"
But the fun part is there is only 40days left to see how to plays out ( not who wins because safe harbor day already past, but what wacky things Trump does or say)

 

[tabzer]

January 20th is the fixed day in the constitution, although RGB argued that Jan 6th is the day of reckoning. There is always the possibility of an unprecedented action (the trend now) extending it further.

However, the point was about liberals fighting for states' rights, only for a means to an end, as an indication of moral bankruptcy.

Of course it's not all liberals; just the vocal few that feel the need to say something on this particular subject.

 

[Driving_duck]

Either way, if texas does the one in quadrillion chance to win these case, its still bad for everyone because, 1. The democracy would probarly be ruined. And 2. If texas is able to bully smaller states to let trump win, then CA, my home state, would fuck every state, even texas if they want to go on this bagwaggon.
I know trump is trying hard to get this case to win, as since its safe harbor day already passed, they cant really sue without it getting immeditly dismissed, so this is the last case that they could be doing that could do something. But, this is stupid. Apparently the supreme court are gonna respond to the lawsuit on if they want to hear it or not on thursday. Guess which one is gonna be it?

 

[djpannda]

Either way, if texas does the one in quadrillion chance to win these case, its still bad for everyone because, 1. The democracy would probarly be ruined. And 2. If texas is able to bully smaller states to let trump win, then CA, my home state, would fuck every state, even texas if they want to go on this bagwaggon.

I was just thinking that TX should be worried about this lawsuit because if it entertained by the Supreme Court, then that opens the flood gates and we will see a lot of states attack Southerns states Voting regulations.
I don't think the TX AG even cares. my Opinion is that he's phishing for a Pardon and will walk away when he gets it, LET the next AG deal with the mess.

 

[Driving_duck]

I was just thinking that TX should be worried about this lawsuit because if it entertained by the Supreme Court, then that opens the flood gates and we will see a lot of states attack Southerns states Voting regulations.
I don't think the TX AG even cares. my Opinion is that he's phishing for a Pardon and will walk away when he gets it, LET the next AG deal with the mess.

Even then, some of the crimes he had done were on the state level. So, if those go through, hes gonna end up in a orange jumpsuit with his buddies in prison.

 

[djpannda]

Even then, some of the crimes he had done were on the state level. So, if those go through, hes gonna end up in a orange jumpsuit with his buddies in prison.

no remember he might be viewed as a Hero to the Republicans base in TX for this stunt and new AG might just delay the state case enough for people to "forget" about it, to drop it or reduce it

 

[Driving_duck]

no remember he might be viewed as a Hero to the Republicans base in TX for this stunt and new AG might just delay the state case enough for people to "forget" about it, to drop it or reduce it

Hmm, thats seems like it, only problem is if he does get cleared of all crimes, he basicelly commited political suicide. Because the demos will know hes a bitch, and a good amount of republicans would think that too.. (Remember, republicans were the one to accuse him.) So, yeah hes dying in prision, or dying in politics.

 

[djpannda]

Hmm, thats seems like it, only problem is if he does get cleared of all crimes, he basicelly commited political suicide. Because the demos will know hes a bitch, and a good amount of republicans would think that too.. (Remember, republicans were the one to accuse him.) So, yeah hes dying in prision, or dying in politics.

..If you follow World Politics. It happens all the time .. Leaders were convicted of crimes Flee the Country and come back in 5-10 year and Get reelection.. I have a feeling People are just going to claim the charges against the AG were Political and ignore them, just let the 2024 chants

 

[Driving_duck]

..If you follow World Politics. It happens all the time .. Leaders were convicted of crimes Flee the Country and come back in 5-10 year and Get reelection.. I have a feeling People are just going to claim the charges against the AG were Political and ignore them, just let the 2024 chants

Welp, shit.

 

[Xzi]

So you are saying, that even if SCOTUS agrees, and that these states violated their own legislature, and/or the constitution... that the outcome is a successful coup by Trump?

I keep telling you that SCOTUS is not going to hear the case. And an attempted coup is both unconstitutional and a crime (sedition) regardless of whether it's successful or not. Add it to the laundry list of criminal charges Trump should be facing once he's out of office.

Do my eyes deceive me? Liberals fighting for states' rights? Am I having a stroke? Am I... Am I dead?

Well I'm not a liberal, but even they have done a better job sticking up for states rights the last four years than conservatives. See: weed legalization as an example. Republicans only seem to care about states rights insofar as they allow for discrimination, and they HATE the idea of states rights whenever they're in control of the federal government.

 

[omgcat]

I keep telling you that SCOTUS is not going to hear the case. And an attempted coup is both unconstitutional and a crime (sedition) regardless of whether it's successful or not. Add it to the laundry list of criminal charges Trump should be facing once he's out of office.


Well I'm not a liberal, but even they have done a better job sticking up for states rights the last four years than conservatives. See: weed legalization as an example. Republicans only seem to care about states rights insofar as they allow for discrimination, and they HATE the idea of states rights whenever they're in control of the federal government.

more like the SCOTUS doesn't want to take the case, and risk an extra 7 million disenfranchised voters stringing them up in the streets. if they overturn this election, the USA falls apart. I want the 33 states who aren't calling for this BS to boycott the 17 states that are. they can grow their own food and Dev their own tech. no more handouts from blue states to them.

 

[tabzer]

I keep telling you that SCOTUS is not going to hear the case. And an attempted coup is both unconstitutional and a crime (sedition) regardless of whether it's successful or not.

So, if SCOTUS accepts the case, and favors the plaintiff--that means that SCOTUS is corrupt?


"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules," Justice Neil Gorsuch

 

[Xzi]

So, if SCOTUS accepts the case, and favors the plaintiff--that means that SCOTUS is corrupt?

Correct. Even just agreeing to hear the case would be evidence of corruption/conflict of interest, but again, Republicans are all about self-preservation first and foremost, and that includes Trump's SCOTUS appointees. They won't stick their necks out for him or anyone else now that they have their cushy lifetime seats on the court.

 

[tabzer]

They won't stick their necks out for him or anyone else now that they have their cushy lifetime seats on the court.

Even just agreeing to hear the case would be evidence of corruption/conflict of interest

These contradict each other. You say they are not interested, but then you say if they were, it'd be a conflict of interest. SCOTUS is not owned by the President, by your admission. How would it be a conflict of interest?


A State made an accusation about other States violating the constitution and it's wrong for SCOTUS to concern itself with that?

 

[Xzi]

These contradict each other. You say they are not interested, but then you say if they were, it'd be a conflict of interest. SCOTUS is not owned by the President, by your admission. How would it be a conflict of interest?

It's not contradictory at all, I'm saying they won't agree to hear the case because to do so would mean risking their own positions. Trump appointed three of them, and therein lies the conflict of interest. No, he doesn't own his appointees, but even humoring such a case would show that he still holds sway over them, and that they're willing to place party above country and constitution.

Given that they already refused to hear a case to overturn PA, there's not a snowball's chance in hell they agree to hear a case about overturning PA and several other states. Courts do not decide elections. Trump's legal team has already been told that a million times and in a million different ways, and yet they still don't seem to get it.

A State made an accusation about other States violating the constitution and it's wrong for SCOTUS to concern itself with that?

Pennsylvania has filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the lawsuit is seditious and unconstitutional in itself. And they're 100% on target with that. Texas' AG should face civil charges at the very least, if not criminal charges following this. Speculation is that he was only ever fishing for a pardon from Trump to begin with, because he had previously committed crimes while in office.

 

[Deleted member 326676]

Another frivolous lawsuit bites the dust. #55
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1337096464997244929

 

[tabzer]

Given that they already refused to hear a case to overturn PA, there's not a snowball's chance in hell they agree to hear a case about overturning PA and several other states.

That's not true. Emergency injunctive relief was denied but the case is still live.

Courts do not decide elections.

But SCOTUS already has and does determine legitimacy concerning votes on grounds of a state's legislation. That's precedent.

Pennsylvania has filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the lawsuit is seditious and unconstitutional in itself.

How is it unconstitutional? It would be seditious if it had no merit. One state rats on another state about breaking the constitution and you expect SCOTUS to ignore it and even punish the state that told? Lol.