[Tom Bishop]

This is true.

Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's a mocking paraphrase on the famous Marie Antoinette semi-quote "Let them eat cake".

Yes - that's what makes it funny. You tried to present a random (potentially entirely made up) quote paraphrasing another (entirely made up) quote as if it was an astute analysis. It wasn't.

[Lord Dave]

This is true.

Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.

So the supreme court took the case?  Is currently scheduled to hear arguments?

[Rama Set]

This is true.

Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.

I never said any of it was untrue did I?

I said the last judge found that they didn’t have standing in a federal court. This is an extremely reasonable and accurate position and will mean that any higher appeal to a federal court will be rejected. I know you won’t believe me, so just wait and see. State appeals are done and although she might spend the time appealing to SCOTUS the likelihood that they all of a sudden find standing where none was before is vanishingly small.

Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.

Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.

Not in the portion you quoted but regardless, you are scrambling to find a justification. Safe Harbour is passed and the case was already laughable in that it’s well established that State SC’s have ultimate authority over State statutes. If that principle were the crux of the case it MIGHT have been heard by SCOTUS, but it’s not, laches are the crux of the case and on that basis, the case was ruled against.

Now we wait to see if the Texas suit will be heard (it probably will) and then watch as it’s dismissed for lack of standing.

EDIT: The PA case asked SCOTUS to treat the request for injunctive relief as ceritori.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1336511573234429954/photo/1

So it looks like the case has been rejected at this time.

EDIT the 2nd (So as to please Honk): A bunch of lawyers talking about either how fucking dumb the Texas suit is, or how its a Chinese communist plot.

https://www.law.com/2020/12/08/no-chance-of-success-lawyers-demolishes-ken-paxtons-latest-election-lawsuit/?slreturn=20201109104747

[Iceman]

I'm just looking forward to when, sometime after inauguration day, someone tabulates the cost of all these legal proceedings to the american taxpayers. I realize fundraising by the trump campaign is footing the bill for their lawyer fees, bit that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total costs piling up over all this.

The average american got 1200 bucks at the start of all this to get them through a year-long worldwide pandemic... now the top republican officials are contracting the virus they told people didnt exist, while fighting against widespread fraud they haven't provided evidence of, and saber-rattling about #fakenews.

Americans deserve better.

[J-Man]

I'm just looking forward to when, sometime after inauguration day, someone tabulates the cost of all these legal proceedings to the american taxpayers. I realize fundraising by the trump campaign is footing the bill for their lawyer fees, bit that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total costs piling up over all this.

The average american got 1200 bucks at the start of all this to get them through a year-long worldwide pandemic... now the top republican officials are contracting the virus they told people didnt exist, while fighting against widespread fraud they haven't provided evidence of, and saber-rattling about #fakenews.

Americans deserve better.

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

[Rama Set]

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

You will be happy to know that the citizens will not be asked to pay the US debt.  You will not be happy to know that gold is just as arbitrarily valuable as money is

[Tom Bishop]

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

[Lord Dave]

Hey all Americans.  (Not Trumpers.  They are anti-American)
Get a gun.
Get multiple guns.
And lots of ammo.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944385798/poll-just-a-quarter-of-republicans-accept-election-outcome

Because Republicans are going to start a civil war.

[AATW]

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

So? They’ve been filing cases for the last month and got laughed out of court every time (except 1, which was nothing to do with fraud).

Come back when they’ve actually won a case of any significance.

[Rama Set]

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Well 17 states is more than 1 so that means its more better a suit!

[Iceman]

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

Ah yes, America: land of the free, er, $340k debt at birth.

Those big numbers you throw around are my point exactly. Already carrying a debt of 30Trillion, Donnie chose to bail out CEOs instead of working class. And they still love him for it somehow.

The master of spin... if only it worked in a courtroom.

[Lord Dave]

Oh please the debt is $30 TRILLION, a baby born here owes $90,000 plus unfunded liabilities to a tune of at least $250,000. Money is printed freely and doesn't matter, only GOLD does.

Ah yes, America: land of the free, er, $340k debt at birth.

Those big numbers you throw around are my point exactly. Already carrying a debt of 30Trillion, Donnie chose to bail out CEOs instead of working class. And they still love him for it somehow.

The master of spin... if only it worked in a courtroom.

It doesn't need to work in a court room.  Just needs to work on people with guns.

[Tom Bishop]

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Well 17 states is more than 1 so that means its more better a suit!

lol

Jay Sekulow, constitutional lawyer who has tried 12 cases with the Supreme Court:

https://aclj.org/election-law/radio-recap-breaking-texas-sues-pa-ga-mi-wi-at-supreme-court

What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.

Robert Barnes, constitutional lawyer:

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law

[Rama Set]

Oh wow, what insight.  It doesn't mean the case isn't hot garbage though.  Every state that is part of the suit has not had their constitutionally endowed electors undermined or violated.  There is no remedy to provide them.  The case is the most disgusting sort of politicking that could happen and its a shameful farce on a country that purports to value democracy.

[Tom Bishop]

Oh wow, what insight.  It doesn't mean the case isn't hot garbage though.  Every state that is part of the suit has not had their constitutionally endowed electors undermined or violated.  There is no remedy to provide them.  The case is the most disgusting sort of politicking that could happen and its a shameful farce on a country that purports to value democracy.

Find three constitutional lawyers who say that the case has no chance to beat my two.

[AATW]

It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

Wow. So once again you're cheering on a lawsuit which is asking the SCOTUS to allow 4 States to disregard the result of an election and allow them to install electors who will vote the way they want?
Given the majority of people in the country believe the election was fair, that doesn't sound like it will end well.
Still, at least you all have guns. Have fun!

[Lord Dave]

lol

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-court-brief-idUSKBN28J2WE?taid=5fd133d1f0e12b00013d9bfd

"(Reuters) - Seventeen U.S. states on Wednesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a bid by Texas to overturn the presidential election results."

Well 17 states is more than 1 so that means its more better a suit!

lol

Jay Sekulow, constitutional lawyer who has tried 12 cases with the Supreme Court:

https://aclj.org/election-law/radio-recap-breaking-texas-sues-pa-ga-mi-wi-at-supreme-court

What is at stake here, and this is why I think out of all the cases this is the most significant – to be clear, there’s no doubt about it – this is the most significant of the cases that has been filed. It’s the most significant because it is completely outcome determinative. What does that mean? It means that if the Court were to rule in favor of Texas, those four states, the states named in the complaint, would in in fact have their state legislatures determine the outcome. They would pick the electors.

This is a lawsuit, of course, against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It is original jurisdiction which means it doesn’t start at the district court level. It starts at the Supreme Court of the United States where it was lodged yesterday evening very, very late; actually by the time it was lodged, probably this morning. It’s a very significant piece of litigation, in my mind, this is the one.

Robert Barnes, constitutional lawyer:

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law

This was filed awfully late.  I mean, they didn't have to start at the state level, as he said, so why did it take over a month before they filed it?

[Rama Set]

Oh wow, what insight.  It doesn't mean the case isn't hot garbage though.  Every state that is part of the suit has not had their constitutionally endowed electors undermined or violated.  There is no remedy to provide them.  The case is the most disgusting sort of politicking that could happen and its a shameful farce on a country that purports to value democracy.

Find three constitutional lawyers who say that the case has no chance to beat my two.

I already posted a link to several lawyers talking about how ridiculous this suit is. Again, anyone that thinks this is a good idea firmly gives no fucks about state’s rights or democracy. I hope, for all of the USA’s sake this gets the 9-0 vote to deny hearing that it deserves.

[honk]

I don't question Sekulow and Barnes's general legal competence, but I do question their sincerity, and perhaps their judgment. Sekulow is an outspoken conservative as well as Trump's lawyer during his impeachment, and Barnes's Twitter feed leaves no doubt that he's a dedicated Trump fan. Neither of these lawyers can be trusted to provide a sincere legal analysis of this case.