Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[mashman]

True. Unless The Democrats can win both of the Georgia Senate seats, then they'll control it.

There has been some interesting discussion about Senate rules of late. Nobody much has been paying attention to these, but because of the current situation there is keen interest in some quarters.

The US Vice President is the president of the Senate. Apparently the rules say something along the lines "If the Vice president is not available" the majority leader takes over. If the Vice Predsident was to make herself available she would control the house. Apparently the current arrangement where the majority leader runs proceedings has been in operation since 1937, but it is not written in stone.

The Democrats are seemingly not very good at politics, and their current leadership is positively ancient. Both Feinstein and Pelosi must be clocking ninety, Biden is 78, they really need more active and aggressive people running things.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President,"

All Pence has to do is give his interpretation of the result... coz Pence is the President of the Senate. And if the Supreme Court isn't interested in election fraud, having only recently set a precedent, so there will be no change in President at the very least. Spectacular fun and games.

[pritch]

And if the Supreme Court isn't interested in election fraud, having only recently set a precedent, .

With the exception of "original jurisdiction," and I have only a vague idea what that even means, and no understandng of how it applies in this instance, SCOTUS does not usually get involved in disputes between states.

The exceptions under original jurisdiction usually relate to border disputes or water rights. Say one state wanted to dam a river upstream of another state that needs the water for irrigation or whatever.

Most lawyers commenting say the Court will not even hear this case because it is truly absurd.

This is George Conway a lawyer, husband of Kellyanne Conway senior advisor to Trump, she of the "alternate facts". He is normally a conservative Republican but he is no fan of Trump.
The whole clip is interesting, but if you just want to see what he has to say about the Texas case it kicks off just after the 5.00 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXJrjPwuBEk

[Kickaha]

I’m really starting to think a managed break up of the United States might be the best solution here.

Rush Limbaugh is suggesting that the red states should secede from the union.

How well did that go last time they tried anything like it ?

[husaberg]

How well did that go last time they tried anything like it ?

that might be why trump wanted a southern wall to stop Mexico from attacking texas as well at the same time.

[pritch]

There is a website which has available the various submissions to the Supreme Court. I was funny, this morning there were six entries, by dinner the number had doubled.

The lawyer representing Trump is a birtherism type. No, not Obama. He tried to say Kamala Harris was not born in the USA. He was shemed into obscurity until emerging now to represent Trump.

A lawyer commenting on the various papers observed that the opening paragraphs of Pennsylvania's reponse "sing". The writer does make his point well..



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy.

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it.




Anyhoo, if you want to read more, fill yer boots.

https://www.democracydocket.com/case...ion-challenge/

[husaberg]

judging by the results of the last few elections the Democrats will take Texas in the next election

2020
GOP
DONALD TRUMP
52%
5,890,347

DEM
JOE BIDEN
46.5%
5,259,126



2016
REP
TRUMP
52.5%
4,685,047

DEM
CLINTON
43.5%
3,877,868



2012
REP
ROMNEY
57.2%
4,569,843

DEM
OBAMA
41.4%
3,308,124

Texas covid cases 1.390,000 case this far.

23,754 deaths 1,245 deaths this last week.

[pritch]

We had already raised the possibility that Paxton might be fishing for a pardon. Rachel Maddow seems to think so too.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

[pritch]

Reuters are reporting that the US Supreme Court has rejected the Texas/Trump action challenging Biden's win in the four states.

That really should be the end for Trump. Unless he calls for armed insurrection of course. He's crazy enough.

[husaberg]

Bahahahaha

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the Court wrote. “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

No justice publicly dissented from that conclusion.
The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority and three justices he appointed. The third of those appointees, Amy Coney Barrett, was rushed through the Senate confirmation process with Trump saying her vote would be needed to resolve any election disputes.

Trump and Republicans in seven states have so far filed nearly 60 lawsuits to challenge election procedures, but not a single outcome was changed.
December 8 was the deadline for states to resolve election disputes and certify it's election results before the Electoral College meets Monday.

[pritch]

Interesting that it was denied because Texas lacked 'standing'. Almost everybody (except TDL) understood that. Texas were basically appealing to the court because they didn't like the election result in four other states. None of their business. And that was what the court decided.

All those legal filings must have been like a Lotto win for some lawyers. Not Trump's, he often doesn't pay.

I trust Texas Attorney General Paxton dined well at the White house last night. It's unlikely he'll be invited back. If he didn't arrange a pardon while he was there, his chances of getting one just diminished drastically.

Trump said this was "the big one" his plan right from the start had been to go to 'his' Supreme Court if he lost the election. He has tried twice, and twice he failed.

He should just fuck off to Mar A Lardo, it'd give them time to decontaminate the White House before the Bidens move in.

[pritch]

So how is the news affecting MAGAts? They are sooooo fucking stupid.

[husaberg]

Interesting that it was denied because Texas lacked 'standing'. Almost everybody (except TDL) understood that. .

Pritch you are forgetting that TDLR already has claimed to know more than the US supreme court as well as the US federal courts.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131109834
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131118602

[pritch]

Guess who is packing a sad?

[husaberg]

no fear blame your own attorney general...

[mashman]

With the exception of "original jurisdiction," and I have only a vague idea what that even means, and no understandng of how it applies in this instance, SCOTUS does not usually get involved in disputes between states.

The exceptions under original jurisdiction usually relate to border disputes or water rights. Say one state wanted to dam a river upstream of another state that needs the water for irrigation or whatever.

Most lawyers commenting say the Court will not even hear this case because it is truly absurd.

This is George Conway a lawyer, husband of Kellyanne Conway senior advisor to Trump, she of the "alternate facts". He is normally a conservative Republican but he is no fan of Trump.
The whole clip is interesting, but if you just want to see what he has to say about the Texas case it kicks off just after the 5.00 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXJrjPwuBEk

I think the fella in the vid alluded to "original jurisdiction" as being anything non-federal? Either way they're testing the constitution, and that requires a court of law to defend it.

Yeah the insurrection shit gives me the willies for a few reasons, and Trump ain't alone in that shout. I have mixed feelings about such being applied, but if the Supreme Court won't hear constitutional issues, no matter how churlish they may seem, then what other option is there?... especially were rolling over isn't an option. There's a lot at stake on all sides, but as they say, the first casualty of war is the truth... and were they're all as dodgy as feck to begin with, errr. Where's Wonder Woman and her lasoo when ya need it. And whatever happened to using a polygraph.