Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit

Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
178 Posts 22 Posters 3.3k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Doctor PhibesD Online
    Doctor PhibesD Online
    Doctor Phibes
    wrote on last edited by
    #5

    That looks a lot like suicide chess to me.

    I was only joking

    1 Reply Last reply
    • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

      Texas says the quiet part out loud. They couldn’t have intervened earlier because they didn’t know who the winner would be! That is an amazing confession.

      27BD48C0-0B2C-4DF9-9808-EACA49FAF64E.jpeg

      LarryL Offline
      LarryL Offline
      Larry
      wrote on last edited by
      #6

      @jon-nyc said in Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit:

      Texas says the quiet part out loud. They couldn’t have intervened earlier because they didn’t know who the winner would be! That is an amazing confession.

      27BD48C0-0B2C-4DF9-9808-EACA49FAF64E.jpeg

      I fail to see how this is any kind of "confession". Confession to what? That you can't prosecute someone of a crime until after they've committed the crime? Several other state AG's have joined the suit. It has to go straight to the supreme court, and there are already 2 previous rulings on the issue that set the precedent.

      Too bad so sad don't be mad BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
        #7

        It's not a confession of a crime, rather a motive for filing the suit.

        You're supposed to pretend its about justice or principle or something. Not 'our guy lost'.

        Only non-witches get due process.

        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
        1 Reply Last reply
        • LarryL Offline
          LarryL Offline
          Larry
          wrote on last edited by
          #8

          Correct. And that's exactly what it is.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

            Trump vows to intervene in the suit.

            https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-idUSKBN28J1VJ

            jon-nycJ Offline
            jon-nycJ Offline
            jon-nyc
            wrote on last edited by
            #9

            @jon-nyc said in Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit:

            Trump vows to intervene in the suit.

            https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-idUSKBN28J1VJ

            Screen Shot 2020-12-09 at 5.19.28 PM.png

            Only non-witches get due process.

            • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by
              #10

              Although it looks like it was actually written by the Texas lawyers.

              Only non-witches get due process.

              • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
              1 Reply Last reply
              • LarryL Offline
                LarryL Offline
                Larry
                wrote on last edited by
                #11

                Trump isn't the one filing the Texas suit. The Texas attorney general is. He's an attorney. The 7 or 8 other states joining the suit are attorney general's for their states. All attorneys.

                1 Reply Last reply
                • jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nyc
                  wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                  #12

                  Right, I'm not talking bout the suit itself, rather the promised and delivered 'intervention' from Trump. See my post above.

                  Notice it's titled "MOTION OF DONALD J. TRUMP, ...."

                  Only non-witches get due process.

                  • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nycJ Offline
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #13

                    16 states joined the suit.

                    Of course this happened.

                    C999BA95-A9CF-43F5-8593-74474F82D556.jpeg

                    Only non-witches get due process.

                    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                    89th8 1 Reply Last reply
                    • jon-nycJ Offline
                      jon-nycJ Offline
                      jon-nyc
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #14

                      Andrew McCarthy on the suit:

                      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.

                      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.

                      Only non-witches get due process.

                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                      LuFins DadL 1 Reply Last reply
                      • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                        16 states joined the suit.

                        Of course this happened.

                        C999BA95-A9CF-43F5-8593-74474F82D556.jpeg

                        89th8 Offline
                        89th8 Offline
                        89th
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #15

                        @jon-nyc said in Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit:

                        16 states joined the suit.

                        Of course this happened.

                        C999BA95-A9CF-43F5-8593-74474F82D556.jpeg

                        😂 all of this is so dumb and childish.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                          Andrew McCarthy on the suit:

                          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.

                          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.

                          LuFins DadL Offline
                          LuFins DadL Offline
                          LuFins Dad
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #16

                          @jon-nyc said in Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit:

                          Andrew McCarthy on the suit:

                          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.

                          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.

                          It goes back to what I said about Trump’s first attempt in PA. He has no standing or right for the basis of the claim. The PA State Legislature (Republican) did. If they had filed the suit it would have been heard and had some weight. They didn’t.

                          The Brad

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • jon-nycJ Offline
                            jon-nycJ Offline
                            jon-nyc
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #17

                            They’re going to give him a single sentence ending in the word “denied”.

                            BE613CAE-03D8-41D1-9FD1-644173E37FEE.jpeg

                            Only non-witches get due process.

                            • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • jon-nycJ Offline
                              jon-nycJ Offline
                              jon-nyc
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #18

                              By the way, Ken Paxton, the Texas AG that filed this frivolity, is also angling for a pardon.

                              It’s notable that the Texas Solicitor General didn’t sign on. He actually argues cases in front of Scotus so has to retain some dignity.

                              Only non-witches get due process.

                              • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                              1 Reply Last reply
                              • LarryL Offline
                                LarryL Offline
                                Larry
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #19

                                Jon, you can try to explain this away all you want, but the fact is this is real, and it's not going to end well for you., lol

                                jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                • X Offline
                                  X Offline
                                  xenon
                                  wrote on last edited by xenon
                                  #20

                                  This is gonna get laughed out of court - like all the shit before it. Embarrassing.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  • LarryL Offline
                                    LarryL Offline
                                    Larry
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #21

                                    No, it won't get laughed out of court. This very situation has already been ruled on by the supreme court twice in the past. It wasn't laughed out of court either time, and the precedent is already set.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    • 89th8 Offline
                                      89th8 Offline
                                      89th
                                      wrote on last edited by 89th
                                      #22

                                      @Larry , Trump is like 0 for 50 with his legal attempts by Trump’s “elite strike force”. This is an embarrassing joke. Trump lost...big time. How has he not accepted it? Oh, to string along fanbois like you.

                                      LarryL 1 Reply Last reply
                                      • 89th8 Offline
                                        89th8 Offline
                                        89th
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #23

                                        977E5A57-D89B-469B-8D97-EB99B5B43CCC.jpeg

                                        JollyJ LuFins DadL 2 Replies Last reply
                                        • LarryL Larry

                                          Jon, you can try to explain this away all you want, but the fact is this is real, and it's not going to end well for you., lol

                                          jon-nycJ Offline
                                          jon-nycJ Offline
                                          jon-nyc
                                          wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                                          #24

                                          @Larry said in Trump trying to get the GOP to sign on to Texas’s useless lawsuit:

                                          Jon, you can try to explain this away all you want, but the fact is this is real, and it's not going to end well for you., lol

                                          Larry, you’re being played hard. The lead lawyers are playing Trump in hopes of securing pardons and the politicians are playing folks like you. Only suckers still believe in this shit. Don’t be one of them.

                                          Only non-witches get due process.

                                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                          LarryL 1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups