[J-Man]

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

[Roundy]

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Your obsession with me is flattering.

[Rama Set]

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Your obsession with me is flattering.

He thinks you are in the bible.

[stack]

Stop it, you're scaring Roundy, hes purchased 3 books already looking for crow recipes.

Your obsession with me is flattering.

He thinks you are in the bible.

Based upon our scores, a bible we all seem to know better than he does.

[Rama Set]

"I think there's no basis for it. I don't think the Supreme Court, for an instant, will consider taking up this case," Ginsberg said. "What it shows you, I think... is that how far the Republican party has sort of corroded in basic beliefs under Donald Trump in this area. It used to be that the party was for state's rights," he added.

 "I can't imagine something that is least faithful to a principle of state's rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections.“

-Ben Ginsberg, GOP Lawyer on Bush v Gore (someone who knows what it takes to win a post-election lawsuit)

https://www.newsweek.com/gop-superlawyer-predicts-texas-election-suit-will-fail-says-party-corroded-under-trump-1553675

[Tom Bishop]

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq





Seventeen State Attorney Generals believe the case has merit.

State Attorney Generals are Constitutional Litigants for their state: State Attorneys-General as First Law Officers and Constitutional Litigants

Seventeen State Attorney Generals are involved:



I named two other constitutional lawyers on the previous page, Jay Sekulow, and Robert Barnes. So it appears to be twenty named constitutional experts vs. the the one named.

[Tumeni]

When did she become a "constitutional lawyer" as opposed to any other kind?

She has a law degree, but constitutional law at that university appears to be merely one component of the curriculum leading to the degree, along with many others.

Is this just a convenient name she has given herself?

[AATW]

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

Jenna Ellis, Trump's lawyer, thinks the case has merit!
Wow. What a scoop!

[Tom Bishop]

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong, and so would not know which side the experts should support.

[AATW]

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong.

OK. Well let's see how this goes in the SCOTUS, shall we?
If they kick it out are you going to concede that Trump lost the election?

[Rama Set]

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong.

Constitutional experts are saying this case is a steaming pile of crap, because it is. Many of the issues raised were either carried out in the one of the appellant states or already dealt with in other suits. The remedy asked for is so transparently self serving and unwarranted and there is no legal basis for SCOTUS to toss a State election. If such a thing were possible (it isn’t) it would happen at the State level because this is a State matter. Texas doesn’t even have standing to bring the suit (PAs election doesn’t affect TXs election, where is the injury?). Laches are going to come up again as well because all the procedures, regulations and statutes should have been challenged before the election and not a week before the EC vote so as to try and disenfranchise 20M voters. The best part is, even if you just canceled the EC votes of those 4 states, Biden still has more EC votes than Trump.

[Tumeni]

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong, and so would not know which side the experts should support.

Further to my question above, when did she become either a "constitutional lawyer", or a "constitutional expert"?

Were these titles self-granted, or did someone bestow them upon her? If the latter, then who?

[Roundy]

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/election-law-experts-say-lone-star-states-dangerous-stunt-has-no-chance-of-success-at-supreme-court/

There are plenty of experts calling this utter garbage, and given their reasons why it's clear there's no reason to think this will legitimately be taken seriously by SCOTUS.

Texas doesn’t have standing to raise these claims as it has no say over how other states choose electors; it could raise these issues in other cases and does not need to go straight to the Supreme Court; it waited too late to sue; the remedy Texas suggests of disenfranchising tens of millions of voters after the fact is unconstitutional; there’s no reason to believe the voting conducted in any of the states was done unconstitutionally; it’s too late for the Supreme Court to grant a remedy even if the claims were meritorious (they are not).

This is a farce.

Much like the Survivor Lady and the Falconer and every failure Trump's inept team has had legally, Tom will have his fun until the moment Amy Comey Barrett laughs in Ted Cruz's face, then he will pretend it never existed and outright ignore it if others ask him about it, and a lot of people arguing against him will be frustrated and annoyed. Troll successful.

[Lord Dave]

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq





Seventeen State Attorney Generals believe the case has merit.

State Attorney Generals are Constitutional Litigants for their state: State Attorneys-General as First Law Officers and Constitutional Litigants

Seventeen State Attorney Generals are involved:



I named two other constitutional lawyers on the previous page, Jay Sekulow, and Robert Barnes. So it appears to be twenty named constitutional experts vs. the the one named.

If the courts decide on the former, then they will throw the suit out.  The constitution is pretty clearly written for states rights and how to perform an election is under the prudance of each state.

Also, the constitution is pretty clear about how electors are decided.  Only in the case of a person not getting the majority, will the legislature intervene.  It says nothing about if the results are not considered accurate.

[Rama Set]

One thing that tips off what a farce this is is that none of Tom’s citations talk about why the suit will succeed and all the detractors are giving strong reasons why it won’t. The other way you know, is the Trump is involved.

[Rama Set]

Sane republicans asking leave to file an amicus to argue against the plaintiffs:

https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/TX-v-PA-Carter-Phillips-et-al-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Strongly supports the jurisdictional defects in the TX v PA et. al. suit.

[stack]

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

How Is Trump’s Lawyer Jenna Ellis ‘Elite Strike Force’ Material?
"But a review of her professional history, as well as interviews with more than a half-dozen lawyers who have worked with her, show that Ms. Ellis, 36, is not the seasoned constitutional law expert she plays on TV."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/politics/jenna-ellis-trump.html

[Iceman]

Sane republicans asking leave to file an amicus to argue against the plaintiffs:

https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/TX-v-PA-Carter-Phillips-et-al-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Amicus-Brief.pdf

Strongly supports the jurisdictional defects in the TX v PA et. al. suit.

Reading  the quotes from the Electors clause in argument 1... I cant wait to hear how the word 'shall' is going to be interpreted in this thread...

[Tom Bishop]

Jenna Ellis, Constitutional Lawyer, appears to believe the case has merit:

How Is Trump’s Lawyer Jenna Ellis ‘Elite Strike Force’ Material?
"But a review of her professional history, as well as interviews with more than a half-dozen lawyers who have worked with her, show that Ms. Ellis, 36, is not the seasoned constitutional law expert she plays on TV."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/politics/jenna-ellis-trump.html

Attacking her on the first job she had doesn't make her not a constitutional expert. She is listed as specializing in Constitutional law on the website of an accredited university:

https://centennial.ccu.edu/staff-and-fellows/jenna-ellis/

"Jenna Ellis taught law, ethics, and leadership courses at Colorado Christian University from 2015-2018. She is a practicing attorney in criminal law and specializes in Constitutional law."

As well as other organizations:

https://www.falkirkcenter.com/our-team/jenna-ellis/

"Jenna Ellis is a constitutional law attorney and Senior Legal Adviser for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. She is a Champion at the Falkirk Center at Liberty University and former law professor at Colorado Christian University. She is a Fellow at the Centennial Institute and author of 'The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution.'

From the about page: "To take up this cause, Liberty University has launched the Falkirk Center for Faith and Liberty "

What's the argument for this?

Maybe it will be "Religious people don't have real universities!!" Lol

https://www.ccu.edu/accreditations/

"Colorado Christian University is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), one of six regional institutional accrediting associations in the United States. HLC was founded in 1895 as a membership organization for educational institutions."

https://www.liberty.edu/aboutliberty/index.cfm?PID=7650

"Liberty University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to award associate, bachelor’s, master’s, specialist, and doctoral degrees."

https://thebestschools.org/online-colleges/accreditation-regional-vs-national/

"Regional accreditation is the mostly widely recognized type of college accreditation. Regional accreditation recognizes a college as meeting the “gold standard” of education. Typically, students can easily transfer degrees and credits from a regionally accredited school to other schools and programs."

[honk]

Constitutional experts are supporting Trump because they believe that Trump is in the right. Discussing whether they are othe left or right, or for-Trump or anti-Trump, is a fallacy, since you would not yourself be an expert on constitutional litigation to know which side is right or wrong, and so would not know which side the experts should support.

You're the one who kept dismissing sourced articles from the mainstream media on the grounds that they were "liberal" and not to be trusted. It would be fallacious to discredit a logical or legal argument on the basis of an ad hominem attack, but when your experts aren't really making arguments and are just lending their authoritative weight to supporting your position, then it's fair game to look at who they are and why they really might be claiming Trump will win. As the recent abandoning of Fox in favor of fringe sources like OANN by Trump fans has shown, Trump and his followers do not tolerate dissent and severely punish those in their circle who criticize him or report on facts unfavorable to Trump, as well as reward those who praise him and say things that he and his fans want to hear. For conservative lawyers with a mainly conservative clientele, saying anything other than, "Yeah, Trump has this in the bag," would be career suicide.