2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
Plan = Trusted

plan.jpg
 
The High Prophet of Truth said:
Well, back to TheDonald to see if they'll take it as bad as the USSC's decision.
Click to expand...

DtoDab said:
If I understand correctly, the Texas case at scotus was dismissed because it was a motion for leave, I don't know shit about law, but it seems the bill of complaint was accepted, so they would hear the case, the problem is again the timing.

Texas can't claim harm because nothing happened yet, this is what means having no standing, the electoral college needs to vote, Texas can claim harm, bill of complaint has been accepted so it seems the case CAN be judged on its merits, motion to leave would be to ask a deadline extension of an event but the even has to happen IF I GOOGLED that shit correctly,

So, they are basically saying Texas has a case, but it's too soon come back later once harm has happened.

the Trump campaign possibly has standing in this same case but there is a possibility that this could happen again, no event happened, so no deadllines can be moved.

it seems Texas still has the best case.
Click to expand...
expanding on this, and I find it a convincing explanation I read somewhere.

Texas cannot claim harm because the federal elections didn't happen, everything that happened so far was on a state level, I guess this is what "texas didn't provide a reason for why the elections in Pennysylvania harmed them" means, because the federal elections, which harm texas and everyone else and their dogs, will only happen when the electors are choosen.

I can see they filling it again once the electors are choosen, or so I´ve been told.
 
All becomes gunt said:
Plan = Trusted

View attachment 1784467
Click to expand...
I don't get why they keep making it like "IT'S ALWAYS THE PLAN! TRUST US!". My confidence is low already since 2020 keep fucking things up and you want to keep reassuring us? Fuck off.
The High Prophet of Truth said:
Oh boy, I'm sure something will come from this obvious posturing.
View attachment 1784477
Click to expand...
Looks more like a LARP than a civil war. Remember from the George Floyd riots that these guys can't shoot for shit because they're a bunch of pussies (except Kyle Rittenhouse).
 
A Security Guard said:
I don't get why they keep making it like "IT'S ALWAYS THE PLAN! TRUST US!". My confidence is low already since 2020 keep fucking things up and you want to keep reassuring us? Fuck off.

Looks more like a LARP than a civil war. Remember from the George Floyd riots that these guys can't shoot for shit because they're a bunch of pussies (except Kyle Rittenhouse).
Click to expand...
That's why I said it's posturing.
 
ditto said:
Or what exactly? He just spent the last 4 years as the most powerful man on earth and this election was the result.

If this is the future then the GOP is doomed. Qanon is worse than the moral majority bs.
Click to expand...
Qanon as much as they are cringe will never be mainstream like the moral majority. Rather deal with schizos than commie psychos/race-baiters.
 
So, this was a comment I found that has a convincing albeit I don't know if accurate, explanation of the Texas lolsuit
1. The State of Texas entered a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint regarding how four other states had run their elections.

2. SCOTUS denied it…under Article III of the Constitution. Not “Article III Section X,” but Article III in general. Hold that thought.

> Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions [ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS] are dismissed as moot.

3. Alito wrote, and Thomas joined:

>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 ____ (Feb. 24, 2020)…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.

4. Again:

> In my view we do not have discretion to deny

5. And also again:

>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.

“Motion for leave” means a lot of different things in different courts. But motion for leave often means a need for an filing deadline extension

6. So if the motion to file effectively a “bill of complaint” is granted, the case can be filed for discussion.

7. However, Texas presented a motion for leave (a bill of complaint)…regarding something that hasn’t happened yet:

The electoral college vote.

What happens when that is finalized?

SCOTUS is saying, "Come back then, guys." And maybe also, "And bring half a dozen or a dozen of your best friends who are sick of this shit."

Until the EC votes, by the terms of the TX case filing, TX and its voters have not yet been harmed by the fraud/violation of electoral law/etc. therein.

8. But it hasn’t happened yet. This is what happened in PA—the PA Supreme Court threw out the GOP’s case because the election had not yet been certified. (State process.) SCOTUS cannot consider election harm between states because THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAS NOT YET HAPPENED.

And until the EC meets and votes, the injuries haven’t occurred.

9. Even more interesting: the legislators of the dissenting states will, at that point, be able to claim injury on behalf of the voters they represent. (Equal protection.) Which means they can take the TX case, fill in the appropriate particulars for their state (which are pretty well laid out thanks to all this digging)…and resubmit it to SCOTUS. Maybe not just one state. Maybe several. Maybe many. Maybe multiple cases from each state.

Now one of the things TX alleged is that the four states cited that did illegal things to fix an election harmed TX voters because it disenfranchised them with phony votes. What Alito and Thomas did was basically coach that process—refile, with DIFFERENT claims pointing to different remedies. For instance, the wayPennsylvania’s and Wisconsin’s executive branches made up legislation on the fly regarding vote by mail or late-arriving votes, literal foreign interference in the election process…

10. …about which Article III of the US Constitution has something to say.

III.3

Treason against the United States [meaning the states of the republic], shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Cyberwarfare is warfare. Election fraud through cyberwarfare is warfare. Etc. (There is still the matter of what the DNI report [foreign involvement in election/election fraud] will show on 12/18. We have no idea what, if anything, will be in that.)

The TX case was thrown out not on merits (evidence presented). But on standing. And all the evidence—which SCOTUS did not hear—can be presented later…and with other cases.

11. Arguably this case was presented “early” to see whether SCOTUS would need more evidence to accept the filing. And SCOTUS indicates they don’t…but that wasn’t why they rejected it. They rejected it on the standing—the injury hasn’t hurt yet.

12. Here’s where it gets interesting. There are many state legislatures livid over this, precisely because electoral/voting fraud is being used to beat them over the head with electoral votes.

13. And now go back and read

Article IV.4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;

Curiouser and curiouser. Now think about all the power POTUS has at the moment owing to specific, and very carefully crafted EOs. Plus the DNI report abovementioned, and the corollary EO:


14. SCOTUS referencing Article III also references the spelling out of judicial power vested in SCOTUS (sections 1 and 2). But they didn’t limit their reference to Sections 1 and 2, but the entire Article. That has meaning.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Click to expand...

If it means what I think it means, (and I don't know anything about it) it seems Texas has a good case (I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint), and scotus will judge it, but the timing is not now and it has not been dimissed contrary to what the media has been saying.

Also, it seems that the references scotus makes to article III are clearly talking about punishment for treason.

Section 3.​

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Click to expand...

I could say we haven't seen everything from this case yet, but time will tell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom