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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The High Prophet of Truth said:
I swear I can see something glowing.
View attachment 1777558
Click to expand...

Eh that wasn't that glowy. I mean sure on other threads months ago I'd say lay off the fluorescent drinks to something like that but at this point the whole site's starting to look a lot like:


And with good reasons! So I'd say it doesn't count as glowing until they go full "make them pay" and talk about "soldiers."
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard, Nguyen Van Phuoc, the fall of man and 3 others
Gustav Schuchardt said:
I don't think you'd get hardcore secession but I could definitely see the Red states adopting a 'if we agree with the Washington DC regime on something we'll comply if not we won't' approach.

You could sort of see that with Blue states under Trump. Sanctuary cities for immigrants was a way to say 'We don't like that bit of Federal law and so we're not going to enforce it'. Russian collusion and impeachment were a way to say 'We didn't like the election result, we're going to do everything we can to crippled the administration'.
Click to expand...
Nullification has happened before. But SCOTUS has also decided that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict.

The Feds can still enforce federal law within said state, but the state authorities can tell them "you're on your own, we're not helping you". That's how sanctuary cities/counties work.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: George Geef, PepsiVanilla, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 8 others
Just a boy said:
Enter Arizona (if I'm reading this correctly):
View attachment 1777568
Click to expand...
Well, that explains why AZ wasn't named in the TX suit along with PAGAMIWI as a defendent. AZ's AG was going to file a motion in support of TX

The State of Arizona will first argue that election integrity is of paramount importance. “Every voter” in a federal election “has a right under the Constitution to have his [or her] vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes.” Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 227 (1974). Given this paramount importance, the State of Arizona, through its Attorney General, vigilantly fights to ensure election integrity, including for the 2020 election. The Attorney General participated in eight different suits to defend from attack Arizona election laws that were enacted by its Legislature. Indeed, in just a few months, the State of Arizona and its Attorney General will appear before this Court in the critical case of Brnovich et al. v. Democratic National Committee et al., No. 19-1257, and urge the Court to adopt a construction of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that not only follows the text of that statute but also recognizes that to ensure “fair and honest” elections marked by “order, rather than chaos,” “there must be a substantial regulation of elections.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974) (emphasis added); see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932) (“[E]xperience shows” those “necessary” regulations include not just voting “procedure” but also “safeguards” for the “prevention of fraud and corrupt practices.”).

The State will also argue that if this Court exercises jurisdiction over Texas’s complaint, it is equally important that the Court act quickly to give the Nation certainty. As a preliminary matter, it is the State of Arizona’s consistent position that this Court’s jurisdiction over actions between states is exclusive and nondiscretionary. See Arizona v. California, 140 S. Ct. 684, 684-85 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). The State recognizes, however, that the Court’s current jurisprudence is that its jurisdiction over such matters is discretionary. If the Court either revisits its prior holdings or exercises discretion to accept jurisdiction here, then it is critical the Court resolve this challenge quickly to give the Nation certainty.

CONCLUSION

The State respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file an amicus
brief respecting Texas’s motions.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, AnitaSarsleezian, make_it_so and 3 others
the fall of man said:
A chinese spy thot banged OR TRADED FAVORS WITH a whole bunch of American politicians for sweet, sweet intel. including Eric Swalwell

View attachment 1776216

Edit: I cannot guarantee the thot banged the fartmonster
Click to expand...
Marchesa_ofthe_Vast said:
Swalwell has such a retarded look on his face constantly. We pick such winners to be our leaders.
Click to expand...
Teenage Swalwell.jpg
Same energy.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: George Geef, Yamma Damma, Vyse Inglebard and 5 others
Just a boy said:
Beat me to it, here's the source, and a map of the states in question:
View attachment 1777408
Click to expand...
There's something about these states that the others don't have, or at least as easily. It starts with an F, I think.

KY needs to join so IN and WV are able to be easily resupplied via TN. And Idaho's lack of support confuses me. Did the poison in Boise infect their AG too?

Also I thought it was 13 states and I was gonna make a 13/50 joke or 13 colonies one but the numbers don't work. Oh well, I'd rather lose the opportunity for a joke than have less backing.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Yamma Damma, Vyse Inglebard, GenericReviewerDraco and 2 others
Meat Target said:
Nullification has happened before. But SCOTUS has also decided that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict.

The Feds can still enforce federal law within said state, but the state authorities can tell them "you're on your own, we're not helping you". That's how sanctuary cities/counties work.
Click to expand...
Interesting. This thread is teaching me a lot of US history.

Actually, with respect to your second paragraph, I'm reminded of the riots where Trump send Feds in to enforce the law and Blue states denounced him.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: George Geef, Vyse Inglebard, Puerto Pollo and 4 others
Alaska probably doesn't care given how isolated it is and the wilderness alone will kill the average politician who steps foot off their private jet, but Alaska where you at? You gonna throw your hat into the ring, too, or kick back with a beer and grizzly to watch the fireworks?

Also not gonna happen, but wouldn't it be funny if one of the New England states wanted to join Texas in the fight? Rhode Island was honestly rather suspect, especially given that Judicial Watch report that actually listed them.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: George Geef, Vyse Inglebard, Puerto Pollo and 7 others
Coconut Gun said:
There's no fucking way that would happen, but I am morbidly curious to see what the fallout from that would be.
Click to expand...
You might see some of these flying....
1607554581363.png


You might also hear a few of these old standards get trotted out:
We are a band of brothers
And native to the soil
Fighting for the property
We gained by honest toil;
And when our rights were threatened
The cry rose near and far-
"Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag
That bears a single star!"
Click to expand...

Of course my personal favorite is the perennial Dixie.
Swear upon your country's altar
Never to submit or falter--
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Till the spoilers are defeated
Till the Lord's work is completed!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: George Geef, Syaoran Li, Yamma Damma and 8 others
Meat Target said:
Nullification has happened before. But SCOTUS has also decided that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict.

The Feds can still enforce federal law within said state, but the state authorities can tell them "you're on your own, we're not helping you". That's how sanctuary cities/counties work.
Click to expand...
When states tried this in the 60’s with desegregation, the Federal government wisely sent in the army to enforce it. The same should be done with “sanctuary cities”. Immigration law is not optional on the state level.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Late
Reactions: George Geef, thyme's up, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid and 14 others
Meat Target said:
Nullification has happened before. But SCOTUS has also decided that federal law trumps state law when the two conflict.

The Feds can still enforce federal law within said state, but the state authorities can tell them "you're on your own, we're not helping you". That's how sanctuary cities/counties work.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that when the feds were considered legitimate.

The fuckery concerning the election might change that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shroom King
Gustav Schuchardt said:
Well, that explains why AZ wasn't named in the TX suit along with PAGAMIWI as a defendent. AZ's AG was going to file a motion in support of TX
Click to expand...
So does that mean despite the fraud that happened in AZ they're just gonna ignore it? I don't like it, but I guess it makes sense, since the legal fight is more about legislature, which wasn't the problem in AZ iirc. But now we're at 19 which is exciting.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: George Geef, Vyse Inglebard, the fall of man and 7 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back