SCOTUS Flips Trump the Bird

Todays Republicans ?

Clinton was right

 

Happens when you eat Pizza.

 

It elected a complete moron, before your dead horse

 

I'd take a compete moron over a dead horse any day. Unless you want to use the dead horse as cover for something sinister.

 

I doubt Trump pays any attention to these ludicrous stories about him. Except when it affects his family of course then get out of the way.

 

Great. He's going to be called a LOSER at every turn until the day he dies. His family too.

 

I'm surprised you blame Trump at all. You mean it's not going away any minute now?

 

Speaking of sanctions ....

Lawyers' group calls for disciplining Trump legal team over 'dangerous' fraud allegations

More than four weeks and 40 losses later, observers in the legal community are aghast at how the campaign is using the judicial system to push baseless allegations of systemic voter fraud, and they want the lawyers leading the effort to be held accountable.

“I would like my right to practice law to mean something,” Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and leading constitutional scholar, told Yahoo News. “And if you can just use your law license to fling bulls*** around, if you can use your law license to take up the time of the court, consume their resources, and undermine the credibility of the legal profession on which the rule of law largely depends in this country — then that’s a terrible thing.”

Tribe and more than 1,000 current and former attorneys, retired judges and justices, law professors, former bar association presidents and concerned citizens have signed an open letter calling on bar associations to disavow the Trump campaign attorneys’ conduct, and on disciplinary authorities to investigate, the advocacy group Lawyers Defending American Democracy announced this week.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyers-...er-dangerous-fraud-allegations-215654402.html

 

So much for packing the SCOTUS with right wingers who would do exactly what Trump wanted them to do. I'm wondering if Trump feels betrayed that they actually carried out their sworn duties.

 

Sigh indeed... Ad hominem fallacy. I am not the topic of this thread, neither are you. Also, let's add straw man to the mix. This is not a states' rights issue as you repeatedly and fallaciously claim.

Please cite the case law or USC upon which you base your claim. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania violated its own election laws, without due process through the legislative amendment of the Pennsylvainia Constitution. This is a prima facie violation of Article II, SS. I of the Constitution of the United States, over which the USSC has jurisdiction.

Except in this case, the commonwealth violated the Constitution of the United States, hence not a "state issue" as you errantly argue.

Pedantics. "Election for federal office." Reasonable people understand the distinction.

And in Pennsylvania, they have to amend the state constitution, which they did not do. Hence, the violation of constitutional law and the basis of the lawsuit filed by the State of Texas on behalf of the people.

 

Fallacy. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

 

lol

 

Argumentum Agriculturus

 

Concession graciously accepted.

 

Concession graciously accepted.

 

Of course it is. Election laws specific to a state are the sole jurisdiction of that state. The state Supreme Court is the finally arbiter of any violation of its election laws, not SCOTUS.

That's incorrect, see first response. If election laws were modified outside the scope of procedures set by the state constitution or other state laws, they needed to be challenged in that state's court(s) in timely fashion and not after an election.

That is 100% false. Again, see first response.

I would say that's an incredible stretch but it's just 100% false. A state has no standing to sue another state for alleged violations of that state's election laws. If it has anything to do with the federal Constitution, that would be the 10th Amendment which grants the state subject matter jurisdiction and prohibits the federal government from interference.

 

Not when a state intentionally violates its own laws for the explicit purpose of tainting its own election, thereby invalidating votes of its residents. There are still rules to follow, and a resident of any state is still a citizen of the United States, thus entitled to seek relief in the federal courts. Article II, Ss. I states that the legislature of each state (or commonwealth in this case) is the body that creates election law under its jurisdiction. In Pennsylvania, specifically, the state constitution states that it must be amended to change election laws within the commonwealth. That did not happen. This not only constitutes a violation of the rights of Pennsylvanians, but because such acts have impact on an election for federal office(s), ergo national impact, ergo, the federal courts have jurisdiction up to and including the USSC. In other words, the unilateral illegal actions of the SOS and other election officials in one state have the effect of tainting the whole of the election. All Americans should be concerned by this, regardless of political affiliation. The pendulum swings both ways.

Oh? Please cite the case law or USC that substantiates your argument,

See Article II Ss. I, Constitution of the United States.

There is a clause in the 10th Amendment often conveniently overlooked: "nor prohibited by it." Meaning, violating the Constitution of the United States is not one of the delegated powers to the states. Frankly, any adult citizen in any state has standing in a case where the illegal actions of another state have impact on that citizen. Hence, a citizen in any state may seek relief in the federal courts.

 

You are alleging that is what happened without any supporting evidence. However, even if you had supporting evidence, it would still be a violation for which only the state's judiciary has full subject matter jurisdiction. The rest of your claim just illogically follows fallacies and assumptions you invented.

There is no federal case law or code and none is needed because it's not a federal issue. There might be Pa case law but I'm not about to go do the research because it's irrelevant to this argument. The 10th Amendment is the ruling clause.

I did, many times. See Amendment X.

There is no federal Constitutional violation. If anything, SCOTUS (or any federal court) would be violating the Constitution (Article III and the 10th Amendment) by failing to dismiss such a case as the federal court(s) would not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Anyone can sue for any reason, it doesn't mean such a suit would survive and that relief would be granted.

 

Yes, it would be better for them next time to nominate a decent guy for president.

I don't believe that they can twice fool the American voter with a clown like Trump.

 

SCOTUS flips the bird once again as easily predicted. NO STANDING.

Supreme Court denies effort to block election results in 4 key states that sealed Trump's fate

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in a brief order. It dismissed all other related claims as moot.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-denies-effort-block-233419258.html

 

The court did not say "it's not a federal issue" as you wrongly assert. It said it determined Texas doesn't have standing. This should be of great concern to all Americans. We have just lost the republic. 2022 will be a **** show.

 

Toto needs to pull a very different curtain. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/11/13/trump-fundraising-pac-recount/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-challenges-to-election-face-end-of-the-legal-road-11607518944
"The legal offensive, despite the long odds, has served as a catalyst for the campaign to raise more than $200 million..."

These cases paid the light bill, and the wages of some very underwater GOP campaigns.