Jump to content

U.S. Supreme Court swiftly ends Trump-backed Texas bid to upend election results


rooster59

Recommended Posts

....the legal standing wasn't the issue. Of course the brunt of the suit was whether state legislative or executive have the final say in state law. Now, the new rules stand. Regardless of state law, the executive can change any law they do not chose to abide by. Future elections will not be determined by a vote, but by the whims of whichever party is in power. The USA has just joined the ranks of the 3rd World.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Morty T said:

....the legal standing wasn't the issue. Of course the brunt of the suit was whether state legislative or executive have the final say in state law. Now, the new rules stand. Regardless of state law, the executive can change any law they do not chose to abide by. Future elections will not be determined by a vote, but by the whims of whichever party is in power. The USA has just joined the ranks of the 3rd World.

 

not at all.  there are no "new rules."  as there was no standing, the case was not heard, nothing was decided.  in future, they can bring a case up through the courts which will provide standing before the supreme court.

 

................well, if they have evidence.  affidavits and speculative theories will still amount to bupkis.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Morty T said:

....the legal standing wasn't the issue. Of course the brunt of the suit was whether state legislative or executive have the final say in state law. Now, the new rules stand. Regardless of state law, the executive can change any law they do not chose to abide by. Future elections will not be determined by a vote, but by the whims of whichever party is in power. The USA has just joined the ranks of the 3rd World.

Nonsense. Legal standing was the issue, so your post is incorrect from start to finish.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Amongst which fleeing the country is probably the only one that will keep him out of prison.

 

I heard an interview with Barbara Res the other day.  She managed projects for Trump over 18 years, but quit years ago.  She thinks that Trump will indeed flee the country to avoid prosecution in NY State and possibly other states.  My own view is that the most rational course of action for Trump is to pardon his family and co-conspirators, get a pardon for himself from Pence, and then flee the country.  I assume that his lawyers advise him as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't be too happy. The resistance begins January 21.

 

It's a pity the SCOTUS didn't allow it as if the election was won fair and square Biden would still be POTUS come Jan 20, but the matter would be settled. Just refusing to take the case means that the accusation of fraud will not be going away any time soon. 70 million angry Americans is not a good way to start a term.

However, IMO there are around 70 million Americans that will feel aggrieved, and do everything they can to bring Biden down.

Expect the same sort of <deleted> as Trump got the past 4 years, and if the GOP wins a majority in the house come 2022, expect some large payback. If the GOP still hold the senate they might even impeach and convict Biden.

Regardless, the investigation into Hunter Biden will IMO hurt Joe Biden, and the Chinese spy sleeping with a Democrat politician should be satisfyingly embarrassing to Pelosi, who is downplaying it. I'm sure there are a lot of embarrassing things to come out about Democrats, so I'm expecting US politics to be entertaining for some time to come.

The madness continues until the underlying justified frustration/anger within the working middle class concerning the economic imbalance is addressed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bendejo said:

Can a president remove a Supreme Court justice he installed?  How about three of them?

:wink:

 

 

So funny. The President nominates, not installs. So Obama nominated Justice Merrill Garland but Obama did not install him. The Senate must confirm or the Justice is not installed. In the case of the example I cited, the Senate refused to consider the Presidential nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, J Town said:

Give it time.

 

In a more recent tweet he quotes Sean Hannity '

 

" Justices Thomas and Alito would've allowed Texas to proceed with it's Texas election lawsuit " ..

 

but I'm confused as I thought Hannity worked on Fox news .. But aren't Fox now lower than dog dirt in the eyes of DJT for having the temerity to announce a state for J B in the days after the election .? Or is S H some sort of fifth columnist within Fox continuing to sound the clarion for DT before self destructing when he ( D T ) gets turfed out of the Whitehouse next month ..

 

 

The last line of the tweet is telling ..

"  Never even given our day in court!  "

They are the sentiments of a man who knew this was never really going to work and are were more likely uttered to assuage his core support and keep the fire burning .. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

but I'm confused as I thought Hannity worked on Fox news .. But aren't Fox now lower than dog dirt in the eyes of DJT

 

Let's see where fortune leads [Trump].  Prison, exile, madhouse, assisted-living facility, . . ..  Barring those perhaps a deal with an existing tinfoilhat news outlet or starting his own.  He could take Hannity with him.

 

Edited by onthedarkside
name calling reference removed
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He's made over 200 million from his cult members since election day.  And he can  pretty much do whatever he wants with that money.  Suckers...

I think he only keeps half but it's still a nice haul.  All he had to do was say "the election was rigged" over and over again and the rubes lined up to send him their social security checks.  Sounds like a pretty sweet gig if you ask me.

Edited by shdmn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, shdmn said:

I think he only keeps half but it's still a nice haul.  All he had to do was say "the election was rigged" over and over again and the rubes lined up to send him their social security checks.  Sounds like a pretty sweet gig if you ask me.

I thought it was more than half???  But either way, that's a lot of cash.

 

Here's why he's raking in the cash.  Clueless cult members:

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/media/2020/12/11/trump-supporters-georgia-misinformation-osullivan-ebof-vpx.cnn

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shdmn said:

It's a lot of things but it all can be distilled down to hating libs.  Anything and everything about libs.  So much so that they are willing to sacrifice democracy itself over it.  Most of it pounded into them over decades of brainwashing by Fox news and now more and more from the internet.

Right. It is about owning the libs. Basically it's a cult of personality on the part of most Republicans. We know this because when Trump reversed himself on issues like the swamp his followers applauded.  Remember when Wall St was part of the swamp and Trump promised to bring it to heel? But when he appointed Steve Mnuchin, his followers applauded. And the results were entirely predictable: greatly reduced enforcement of Wall St. Whereas when Biden selected Austin, a much milder transgression, Democrats objected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.









×
×
  • Create New...
""