[Lord Dave]

So now Powell is applying for SCOTUSSs to hear her case. The decision to be dismissed for lack of standing will be upheld. No judge will examine her shitty evidence formally. Fringe conservatives will continue to radicalize. It’s going to be a dark time until Jan. 20th

Yeah.... No.
This is the dusk before the darkest time.  Jan 20 is when it gets bad.

[AATW]

Unfortunately, I agree.
This isn’t going to go away.
In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.
It would be funny were it not for his almost cult-like supporters who hang on his every word and continue to believe it no matter how clearly the things he says are proven false.

[garygreen]

They didn't decline to hear it based on merit.

Read your own link: "In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case"

Lack of standing is not lack of merit. Read moar.

lololololol maybe read the actual documents next time. alito and thomas explicitly state: "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 therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

really nice goalpost moving, though.

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

lmao i found nine.

[Tom Bishop]

They didn't decline to hear it based on merit.

Read your own link: "In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case"

Lack of standing is not lack of merit. Read moar.

lololololol maybe read the actual documents next time. alito and thomas explicitly state: "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 therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

really nice goalpost moving, though.

Nope. The Texas lawsuit asked for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. That's something that happens before the lawsuit is decided. An injunction or TRO can stop whatever's currently on-going until the lawsuit is decided.

Alito was saying is he wouldn't have granted the relief right now based solely on the filing. He would've heard the case and decided what to do from there.

They don't pre-judge the case before they've heard it. This is normal legal language. Sometimes you get some relief from an injunction while the case proceeds, sometimes you don't.

[AATW]

You’ve spent the last month as failure after failure piled up saying how good that all was because it cleared the way to the SCOTUS, who you hoped would come to the rescue.
And here we are...
All 9 judges wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole, including the 3 who Trump himself appointed.
Feel free to give this nonsense up any time you want to.

[honk]

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

[Tumeni]

The Texas lawsuit asked for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

.. neither of which were granted, and the Texas suit was denied.

That's something that happens before the lawsuit is decided. An injunction or TRO can stop whatever's currently on-going until the lawsuit is decided.

But that something did not happen. Are you talking about a different lawsuit that's still to be decided in your second sentence?

Alito was saying is he wouldn't have granted the relief right now based solely on the filing. He would've heard the case and decided what to do from there.

They don't pre-judge the case before they've heard it. This is normal legal language. Sometimes you get some relief from an injunction while the case proceeds, sometimes you don't.

Are you a qualified lawyer, licenced to practice in the USA?

EDIT - In layman's terms, as I see it, seven of the justices said "This case has no standing" and the other two said "It has standing, but even so, we'd throw it out if it proceeded" - Agree?

[Dr Van Nostrand]

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

I think also there is some element of fear/ self-preservation. Being prez, gives him a lot of legal and financial protections. As soon as he steps out of the White House, a swarm of process servers will descend on him like flies. Lenders will be calling wanting to know how he will keep up payments.

He's desperate on a lot of levels.

[AATW]

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

The sheer amount of money he has raised from gullible idiots is certainly a big bonus. Is that his primary motive? Possibly, but I’m a bit sceptical. That implies a level of strategic thinking and intelligence I don’t think he possesses.

[crutonius]

In a final act of petulance, driven by his narcissistic inability to admit he lost, Trump has sown as much doubt and division as possible.

Trump is childish and egotistical, yes, but I think this was more of a business decision than just personal outrage. It's easy to mock Trump as a loser with no dignity, but in at least one respect, this charade has objectively been an enormous success:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/politics/trump-fundraising-election-day/index.html

The sheer amount of money he has raised from gullible idiots is certainly a big bonus. Is that his primary motive? Possibly, but I’m a bit sceptical. That implies a level of strategic thinking and intelligence I don’t think he possesses.

I disagree.  Grifting any money from whoever he can has been a pretty consistent theme of his presidency and life really.

There's been a constant stream of reports where Trump keeps stuffing as many government employees in his resorts and charging as much as possible.  It's a really weird way to bilk the taxpayers.  It's like he doesn't have the imagination to think bigger.

[Tumeni]

per Marc Elias on twitter (@marceelias), as of 14 hours or so ago, the Trump team's tally was, out of 58 cases, 1 barely-significant win, and 57 losses.

[Tom Bishop]

per Marc Elias on twitter (@marceelias), as of 14 hours or so ago, the Trump team's tally was, out of 58 cases, 1 barely-significant win, and 57 losses.

Sounds like a lie. List them out and link to a source. I've posted sources which reference multiple rulings in favor of the fraud claims. Show which cases were dismissed and why.

Trump's Team didn't bring most of the suits or appeals that have gone to court. Another lie.

Further, we have a quote from Trump's team that they expected the state to try to reject the suits which claimed improper laws, and that the plan was to go up the chain to an arbitrator. Press releases thanked the judges for giving them what they needed. So your analysis of this is questionable.

In layman's terms, as I see it, seven of the justices said "This case has no standing" and the other two said "It has standing, but even so, we'd throw it out if it proceeded" - Agree?

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

[Roundy]

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Ha ha, look, he's been reduced to sputtering non sequiturs.

[Tom Bishop]

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Ha ha, look, he's been reduced to sputtering non sequiturs.

Maybe you should learn more. Lack of standing references a technical qualification of who can bring suit, not any comment on the case.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"Another high-profile case on standing involves the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2000 a California attorney and physician sued the government because his daughter attended a school where the Pledge of Allegiance was recited every morning. The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, claimed that the pledge is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it contains the words “under God.” In 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow, ruling that the pledge is indeed unconstitutional. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court ducked the question of whether the pledge is unconstitutional.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Instead, the Court held that Newdow lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place since he is a noncustodial parent. Only his wife, who had custody of the daughter, could bring the lawsuit.

It’s important to note that standing doesn’t have anything to do with the merits of the case. Being able to prove standing doesn’t mean that you can win the case at hand. It only means that you’ve been able to clear a procedural bar toward proceeding with litigation."

[Lord Dave]

They said that Texas does not have legal standing to bring the particular case. They didn't say that the case had no standing.

Ha ha, look, he's been reduced to sputtering non sequiturs.

Maybe you should learn more. Lack of standing references a technical qualification of who can bring suit, not any comment on the case.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"Another high-profile case on standing involves the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2000 a California attorney and physician sued the government because his daughter attended a school where the Pledge of Allegiance was recited every morning. The plaintiff, Michael Newdow, claimed that the pledge is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it contains the words “under God.” In 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow, ruling that the pledge is indeed unconstitutional. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court ducked the question of whether the pledge is unconstitutional.Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). Instead, the Court held that Newdow lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place since he is a noncustodial parent. Only his wife, who had custody of the daughter, could bring the lawsuit.

It’s important to note that standing doesn’t have anything to do with the merits of the case. Being able to prove standing doesn’t mean that you can win the case at hand. It only means that you’ve been able to clear a procedural bar toward proceeding with litigation."

In other words:
17 states have no business asking the courts to interfere in the election process of other states.

We know that, Tom.  We've been saying that.  So what, exactly, has all this bluster accomplished?  Its sound and fury but signifies nothing.  Except that the lawyers brought a case they (should) have known they had no standing in.

[AATW]

Press releases thanked the judges for giving them what they needed.

Oh yeah. That was funny.

“Thanks for rejecting our cases, that’s exactly what we wanted. Now we can ask SCOTUS. They’ll do what we want!”

Remember how you said that they were asking “dad” but it was actually “mum” who made the decision? You got so excited about that because Trump has picked 3 of the judges so you thought they’d do whatever he wanted even if it meant overturning they will of the people.
Well now you’ve asked her and she’s told you to stop being such a naughty boy and to go to your room.

Stop flailing around like you’ve done for the last month. Trump lost bigly.

[Tom Bishop]

In other words:
17 states have no business asking the courts to interfere in the election process of other states.

We know that, Tom.  We've been saying that.  So what, exactly, has all this bluster accomplished?  Its sound and fury but signifies nothing.  Except that the lawyers brought a case they (should) have known they had no standing in.

The SC didn't really explain why they thought the case had no standing. It could also be that Texas can sue and the case was brought too early. Texas couldn't show damages and argue that their votes were diluted since the electors haven't even been sent to Congress yet. Demonstrating standing also has a time element.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"To demonstrate standing, a party has to prove first that it has an actual case to proceed. This is a procedural matter, and it requires the case to be brought at the right time. If a case is brought too early, it’s not yet ripe. If it’s brought too late, then the case is moot. For example, assume that a state is debating whether or not to pass a law that would require thirty hours of financial management classes before anyone is allowed to form his or her own company. If an entrepreneur who wishes to form her own company but doesn’t want to take the thirty hours of classes sues the state for an unconstitutional law, that lawsuit would be dismissed for being brought too early—it is not ripe since the law hasn’t been passed yet. Now let’s assume that the law has been passed, and the entrepreneur, who has abandoned her plans and is now working for someone else, sues the state anyway. That lawsuit would also be dismissed since it is now moot. Even if the entrepreneur won the case and the law was overturned, the remedy would be meaningless to her since she does not plan to take the class anyway."

[Rama Set]

lol no. This suit is ripe since the laws have been enacted and the injury claimed has already occurred. It will become moot on Jan 20th.

It was a bull shit case pursued by con artists and gobbled up by partisan hacks and desperate wishful thinking. The democrats raise their glass of adrenochrome to all the GOP members who are salting the Earth with their tears.

[Lord Dave]

In other words:
17 states have no business asking the courts to interfere in the election process of other states.

We know that, Tom.  We've been saying that.  So what, exactly, has all this bluster accomplished?  Its sound and fury but signifies nothing.  Except that the lawyers brought a case they (should) have known they had no standing in.

The SC didn't really explain why they thought the case had no standing. It could also be that Texas can sue and the case was brought too early. Texas couldn't show damages since the electors haven't even been sent to congress yet. Demonstrating standing also has a time element.

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_the-legal-and-ethical-environment-of-business/s06-02-standing-and-personal-jurisdic.html

"To demonstrate standing, a party has to prove first that it has an actual case to proceed. This is a procedural matter, and it requires the case to be brought at the right time. If a case is brought too early, it’s not yet ripe. If it’s brought too late, then the case is moot. For example, assume that a state is debating whether or not to pass a law that would require thirty hours of financial management classes before anyone is allowed to form his or her own company. If an entrepreneur who wishes to form her own company but doesn’t want to take the thirty hours of classes sues the state for an unconstitutional law, that lawsuit would be dismissed for being brought too early—it is not ripe since the law hasn’t been passed yet. Now let’s assume that the law has been passed, and the entrepreneur, who has abandoned her plans and is now working for someone else, sues the state anyway. That lawsuit would also be dismissed since it is now moot. Even if the entrepreneur won the case and the law was overturned, the remedy would be meaningless to her since she does not plan to take the class anyway."

You'd think a constitutional lawyer would have known that and, ya know, planned properly.

Unless they're just bad at their job. Which is very possible.  Not everyone who has a law degree got high marks in school.

[Tom Bishop]

lol no. This suit is ripe since the laws have been enacted and the injury claimed has already occurred. It will become moot on Jan 20th.

What if the state legislators changed their electors, which could technically happen, before they could get to Congress to vote on behalf of that state and cause the damage Texas is alleging? The courts can't rule on something before it occurs or causes damages.

You'd think a constitutional lawyer would have known that and, ya know, planned properly.

Unless they're just bad at their job. Which is very possible.  Not everyone who has a law degree got high marks in school.

Or there are no precedents or prior cases which can show at which stage the SC considers damages to have occurred to the States in an illegitimate presidential election.