Election Litigation Status

[Res Ipsa]

Because the Paxton case involves the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it would not surprise me to see the Court accept the case. At least two Justices are on record as saying it is mandatory for the Court to accept an original jurisdiction case. I would like to see the Court accept the case and then use the opportunity to lecture these morons, including the moron in chief, about all the stuff they apparently slept through in civics class. Maybe a lead opinion with eight concurring opinions -- a federalist papers for the 21st Century. Not likely, but something nice to think about as I sip my hot cup of joe.

i've updated the first post, which summarizes the different cases. Updates in green viewtopic.php?p=1046#p1046

Response briefs in Texas v. Pennsylvania are due today.
Lin-Wood has filed a petition for certiorari of his GA loss with the Supreme Court.
There is a hearing on the merits this morning in one of Trump's Wisconsin cases.
And a reminder: the EC meets and votes Monday

[Dr Exiled]

Because the Paxton case involves the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it would not surprise me to see the Court accept the case. At least two Justices are on record as saying it is mandatory for the Court to accept an original jurisdiction case. I would like to see the Court accept the case and then use the opportunity to lecture these morons, including the moron in chief, about all the stuff they apparently slept through in civics class. Maybe a lead opinion with eight concurring opinions -- a federalist papers for the 21st Century. Not likely, but something nice to think about as I sip my hot cup of joe.

i've updated the first post, which summarizes the different cases. Updates in green viewtopic.php?p=1046#p1046

Response briefs in Texas v. Pennsylvania are due today.
Lin-Wood has filed a petition for certiorari of his GA loss with the Supreme Court.
There is a hearing on the merits this morning in one of Trump's Wisconsin cases.
And a reminder: the electoral college meets and votes Monday

Yeah, my guess is that we will get some sort of opinion(s) you are talking about in about a week, then some sort of tepid concession/continue to fight on speech, and then on to Trump T.V. I can't see Supreme Court taking witness testimony or having a trial and I am sure there is a big desire to get this matter over with among the justices. The most telling for me is the quick denial of an injunction in the PA case. One would think if they were on board with Trump's claims, they would have granted the injunction. Anyway, perhaps this will allow some closure to some regarding the issue of Trump staying in office and Biden taking over in January.

[subgenius]

Because the Paxton case involves the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it would not surprise me to see the Court accept the case. At least two Justices are on record as saying it is mandatory for the Court to accept an original jurisdiction case. I would like to see the Court accept the case and then use the opportunity to lecture these morons, including the moron in chief, about all the stuff they apparently slept through in civics class.

what "stuff" is that? Apparently several State Attorney Generals were not privy to the information you gleaned from whatever civics class from whenever long ago.

Maybe a lead opinion with eight concurring opinions -- a federalist papers for the 21st Century. Not likely, but something nice to think about as I sip my hot cup of joe.

After the results, I am inclined to think that your spit-take of coffee will be memorable.

And a reminder: the electoral college meets and votes Monday

So? Is there a significant unassailable legal entitlement afforded on that date?
My civics class says the only meaningful and binding date is January 20th.

[canpakes]

Because the Paxton case involves the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it would not surprise me to see the Court accept the case. At least two Justices are on record as saying it is mandatory for the Court to accept an original jurisdiction case. I would like to see the Court accept the case and then use the opportunity to lecture these morons, including the moron in chief, about all the stuff they apparently slept through in civics class.

what "stuff" is that? Apparently several State Attorney Generals were not privy to the information you gleaned from whatever civics class from whenever long ago.

Yeah, this lawsuit’s going nowhere.

You know that, just as you know that there has been no widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud in this election.

[Res Ipsa]

Because the Paxton case involves the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it would not surprise me to see the Court accept the case. At least two Justices are on record as saying it is mandatory for the Court to accept an original jurisdiction case. I would like to see the Court accept the case and then use the opportunity to lecture these morons, including the moron in chief, about all the stuff they apparently slept through in civics class. Maybe a lead opinion with eight concurring opinions -- a federalist papers for the 21st Century. Not likely, but something nice to think about as I sip my hot cup of joe.

i've updated the first post, which summarizes the different cases. Updates in green viewtopic.php?p=1046#p1046

Response briefs in Texas v. Pennsylvania are due today.
Lin-Wood has filed a petition for certiorari of his GA loss with the Supreme Court.
There is a hearing on the merits this morning in one of Trump's Wisconsin cases.
And a reminder: the electoral college meets and votes Monday

Yeah, my guess is that we will get some sort of opinion(s) you are talking about in about a week, then some sort of tepid concession/continue to fight on speech, and then on to Trump T.V. I can't see Supreme Court taking witness testimony or having a trial and I am sure there is a big desire to get this matter over with among the justices. The most telling for me is the quick denial of an injunction in the PA case. One would think if they were on board with Trump's claims, they would have granted the injunction. Anyway, perhaps this will allow some closure to some regarding the issue of Trump staying in office and Biden taking over in January.

That's what I'm hoping. I don't expect Trump to concede -- the fund raising grift is too good. But it might lead some Republican leaders to publicly move on. Lin-Wood's petition for cert got lost in the safe harbor flurry. I don't think the court will grant cert. But it would be a stronger case on the merits for Trump.

[Res Ipsa]

From a reporter listening to today's argument in Trump's WI federal lawsuit:

Bock argues that the election must be voided and thrown out because of ballot policies drawn up months ago and not objected to until after Trump lost, even if there is not a drop of evidence of fraud and they don't allege it.

Really. That's the argument.

[Jersey Girl]

RI "what if" with me for a second. What if the election results are really overturned? What happens then? A do over?

[Res Ipsa]

RI "what if" with me for a second. What if the election results are really overturned? What happens then? A do over?

It’s Terra Incognita. What they Texas lawsuit requests is that the Court order the state legislators in the four states to appoint the electors. But even if the Court overturned the results, it doesn’t have to accept the remedy that Texas proposes. The Court could order a new election in those four states. It could hold that those four states simply don’t get electors this election. They could decide the result in each state by flipping a coin or cutting cards. Or have Trump and Biden arm wrestle for it. The remedy would be whatever at least five of the justices agree to.

[subgenius]

what "stuff" is that? Apparently several State Attorney Generals were not privy to the information you gleaned from whatever civics class from whenever long ago.

Yeah, this lawsuit’s going nowhere.

You know that, just as you know that there has been no widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud in this election.

Not that information is of interest:
https://www.electionevidence.com/

[canpakes]

Yeah, this lawsuit’s going nowhere.

You know that, just as you know that there has been no widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud in this election.

Not that information is of interest:
https://www.electionevidence.com/

Hey, nice list of hair-on-fire rants about how things could have happened, or about who owns stock in what.

Let me know when you can provide examples of the widespread use of narrow and targeted election fraud, or when you grow a nutsack (or spine; your pick, if a nutsack is not attainable) and can admit that you believe that widespread use of narrow and targeted election fraud occurred in this election.
: D