And since everything is bigger in Texas, they are bigger pussies than most?
Reminds me of a joke I heard once...
Supreme Court rejects Pennsylvania Republicans' attempt to block Biden victory
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
And since everything is bigger in Texas, they are bigger pussies than most?
Reminds me of a joke I heard once...
In a last-minute legal challenge, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn election results in four states that helped deliver the presidency to Democrat Joe Biden.
X
Featured on Dallas News
FEATURED ON DALLAS NEWS
Holiday Drone Light Show illuminates night sky over Dallas
Holiday characters illuminate the sky above the Cotton Bowl in Dallas this weekend during the…
Officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin called the lawsuit a baseless stunt. Legal experts cast it as a desperate and unfounded effort to toss out millions of lawful ballots.
ADVERTISING
The Supreme Court signaled little interest in second-guessing state election procedures after the fact, tossing out a separate legal assault Thursday on the outcome in Pennsylvania, though it also ordered the four states targeted by Texas to respond by Thursday.
The Texas lawsuit accuses those states of making unlawful changes to their election policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and creating a “massive opportunity for fraud.”
Texas is asking the high court to block the other four states from voting in the Electoral College, which meets on Monday to formalize Biden’s 306-232 electoral win, marking the latest longshot bid by President Donald Trump or his allies to overturn the November election that he insists was rigged or stolen.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Cloud services in your own environment? Explore why this is a game changer
BY thrown out such allegations as factually baseless. U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr said last week that the Justice Department has no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
ADVERTISING
“This looks a lot more like a political document than a legal document,” said Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law expert at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. “It really stands no chance of success in the Supreme Court. And it reads like a signal of loyalty to Donald Trump.”
Paxton’s counterpart in Georgia, Chris Carr, who chairs the Republican Association of Attorneys General — a group that includes Paxton — disputed Texas’ claims.
“With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” said Carr spokeswoman Katie Byrd.
Paxton did not discuss the lawsuit with Carr ahead of time, she said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, called Paxton’s filing a “publicity stunt, not a legal pleading.”
Texas’ pleading refers eight times to “plaintiff states.” But Texas alone is pursuing the case at this time, suggesting that Paxton’s office tried and failed to get other states to join the effort.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said Tuesday that the high court’s decision on whether to grant Texas’ request will determine how his state proceeds in the “fight to ensure election integrity.”
When a state sues another state, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. It takes five justices to agree to hear such disputes and legal experts deemed that unlikely for a number of reasons, including reluctance to let states meddle in each others’ affairs.
“If Texas can sue these states over how they conduct their elections, what’s to stop Vermont from suing Texas over how it regulates the oil industry, or other permutations?” tweeted University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent Trump critic who called Paxton’s lawsuit “crazy,” and a “dangerous, offensive and wasteful... stunt.”
X
Featured on Dallas News
FEATURED ON DALLAS NEWS
Holiday Drone Light Show illuminates night sky over Dallas
Holiday characters illuminate the sky above the Cotton Bowl in Dallas this weekend during the…
Officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin called the lawsuit a baseless stunt. Legal experts cast it as a desperate and unfounded effort to toss out millions of lawful ballots.
ADVERTISING
The Supreme Court signaled little interest in second-guessing state election procedures after the fact, tossing out a separate legal assault Thursday on the outcome in Pennsylvania, though it also ordered the four states targeted by Texas to respond by Thursday.
The Texas lawsuit accuses those states of making unlawful changes to their election policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and creating a “massive opportunity for fraud.”
Texas is asking the high court to block the other four states from voting in the Electoral College, which meets on Monday to formalize Biden’s 306-232 electoral win, marking the latest longshot bid by President Donald Trump or his allies to overturn the November election that he insists was rigged or stolen.
SPONSORED CONTENT
Cloud services in your own environment? Explore why this is a game changer
BY thrown out such allegations as factually baseless. U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr said last week that the Justice Department has no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
ADVERTISING
“This looks a lot more like a political document than a legal document,” said Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law expert at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. “It really stands no chance of success in the Supreme Court. And it reads like a signal of loyalty to Donald Trump.”
Paxton’s counterpart in Georgia, Chris Carr, who chairs the Republican Association of Attorneys General — a group that includes Paxton — disputed Texas’ claims.
“With all due respect, the Texas Attorney General is constitutionally, legally and factually wrong about Georgia,” said Carr spokeswoman Katie Byrd.
Paxton did not discuss the lawsuit with Carr ahead of time, she said.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, called Paxton’s filing a “publicity stunt, not a legal pleading.”
Texas’ pleading refers eight times to “plaintiff states.” But Texas alone is pursuing the case at this time, suggesting that Paxton’s office tried and failed to get other states to join the effort.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said Tuesday that the high court’s decision on whether to grant Texas’ request will determine how his state proceeds in the “fight to ensure election integrity.”
When a state sues another state, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. It takes five justices to agree to hear such disputes and legal experts deemed that unlikely for a number of reasons, including reluctance to let states meddle in each others’ affairs.
“If Texas can sue these states over how they conduct their elections, what’s to stop Vermont from suing Texas over how it regulates the oil industry, or other permutations?” tweeted University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent Trump critic who called Paxton’s lawsuit “crazy,” and a “dangerous, offensive and wasteful... stunt.”
Texas cannot sue just because it is pissed about the election in 4 other states.....
When this is thrown out I want texas to apologize for having an AG that has a shit paper law degree.
When this is thrown out I want texas to apologize for having an AG that has a shit paper law degree.
and 6 other states.
Yes, I just read that.
Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota have joined Texas & Louisiana.
In an online world of weaponised autism and fucked in the head sad farts you think you can't be surprised..
But this? What the fuck is this? It seems like a threat against Barrett.
Now we have been on this roundabout before so won't be surprised if her rejection of the filing is so she can give some other bullshit leeway it does not warrant. But.. Whatever Donny Assgas meant with the retweet.. Need a trump whisperer for this.
But this? What the fuck is this? It seems like a threat against Barrett.
Now we have been on this roundabout before so won't be surprised if her rejection of the filing is so she can give some other bullshit leeway it does not warrant. But.. Whatever Donny Assgas meant with the retweet.. Need a trump whisperer for this.
Last edited:
Obviously the Supreme Court has gone radical left. I knew that Amy broad was a deep state operative. I have an eye for these things.
Sorry Donald, you should have gone with my recommendation, Justice Stormy, a woman you can trust.
Sorry Donald, you should have gone with my recommendation, Justice Stormy, a woman you can trust.
SCOTUS has already Denied the irregularities argument in Pennsylvania. The Texas suit is frivolous in the same manner.
All the Supreme Court did was not provide injunctive relief to discount mail-in ballots in PA. It did not deny the irregularities case. ---- However, the Texas case, which includes at least 7 other states, does not seek that remedy. Instead, it seeks to have The Supreme Court rule to allow the state legislatures select their electors.
They certainly can sue, they’ll just get rejected.
What’s interesting here is how the court will treat this case because it’s an “original jurisdiction” suit. You don’t see too many of these because it’s rare states sue other states for anything other than water rights anymore.
However, if you’re throwing spaghetti at the wall just trying to get to the Supreme Court then this is the route to go because SCOTUS has to be the court of suit in these matters. It’s actually a desperate attempt and there is literally nothing left after this. Maybe he can sue in the world court?