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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
1607635327763.png




Veritas has them on record as planning on court packing. They want to add 3 more justices to overrule the Constitutionalists.

My, hope there's no contentious SCOTUS case that might interfere with these plans.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: George Geef, Nguyen Van Phuoc, aitchivey and 35 others
Garm said:
So first progressives got BTFO'd and now BLM. MMMMM.... God. Can't you smell that.
Click to expand...
These guys need to google Homan Square Guardian to see what awaits them if Biden gets in
Just a boy said:
Congress members throwing their hat into the ring now:
View attachment 1779750
Click to expand...

105 House members. Holy shit.

HTTP Error 404 said:
That's hardly fair. Biden can't even fuck a dog without hurting himself, how's he gonna fight a WWE Hall of Famer?


View attachment 1779764
Click to expand...

If you compare it to the graph from here I'd expect two more for R and two more for D
1607635588971.png

Dr J said:
If they accept they could hear it over the weekend. I think the Electoral College vote is an arbitrary date that could be pushed back by Congress. We'll see.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that the SCOTUS will use an injunction to stay the electoral college vote if they're going to intervene.
 

Attachments

  • 1607635177686.png
    1607635177686.png
    248.7 KB · Views: 35
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: DudeWeedLol, spiritofamermaid and Vyse Inglebard
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: George Geef, Nguyen Van Phuoc, Yamma Damma and 10 others
Dr J said:
Interesting that it's only three. Almost as if they expect a certain Chief Justice to always side with them
Click to expand...
To be fair that guy might be bullshitting too. Aka 'What do I need to promise you to make you vote for Ossoff? Six new SCOTUS judges? I'll offer you three."

Ossoff is just some jobber. There's no way he'd be in on the number of SCOTUS justices they're planning on adding.

Also 9+3=12. It's a bad idea to have an even number of judges because it would make deadlock possible. So the number added should be a multiple of 2.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, ThatOneLurker, spiritofamermaid and 4 others
The battleground states whose presidential election results are being challenged by Texas at the Supreme Court urged the justices on Thursday not to take up the case.

The four states targeted in the lawsuit warned in uncharacteristically sharp briefs that granting Texas’ unprecedented request would “do violence to the Constitution” and “disenfranchise millions” of voters.




Those states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia — have all certified their election results, with Democrat Joe Biden defeating President Donald Trump.

Pennsylvania in its brief called Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s long-shot bid to overturn other states’ elections “legally indefensible” and “an affront to principles of constitutional democracy.”

“Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees,” Pennsylvania’s scathing brief read.

Dana Nessel, the attorney general of Michigan, told the court in her state’s brief to reject Texas’ case outright.

“To do otherwise would make this Court the arbiter of all future national elections,” Nessel wrote.




“The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true,” Nessel added. “That claim has been rejected in the federal and state courts in Michigan, and just yesterday the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch effort to request an audit.”

Christopher Carr, the attorney general of Georgia, told the court that Texas was seeking to “transfer Georgia’s electoral powers to the federal judiciary.”

“Respect for federalism and the constitutional design prohibits that transfer of power, but this Court should never even reach that issue,” he wrote.

The replies came one day after Trump asked the high court to let him intervene in the case. The president, who is refusing to concede to Biden, has hyped Texas’ case as “the big one” — but election law experts say there’s little if any chance the court will allow it to proceed.

So far, the justices have not taken any action in the case. Despite Trump’s frequent pleas, the court has not shown an eagerness to get involved in any litigation related to the presidential election.

For instance, the justices have not yet said whether they will hear a GOP challenge to absentee ballots received after Election Day in Pennsylvania. On Tuesday, they turned back an appeal from a Trump ally seeking to overturn the results in that state in a one-line order with no noted dissents.

Still, Paxton’s case has fueled hopes among Trump’s supporters who are desperate for a sweeping court order to cancel Biden’s projected victory. Large swaths of voters are convinced by the president’s repeated claims, unproven and frequently debunked, that widespread electoral fraud tipped the election to Biden.

Seventeen states that Trump won in the popular vote further fueled those views Wednesday, when they filed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of Texas’ case.

On Thursday afternoon, 106 Republican members of Congress, led by Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., signed their own brief supporting the suit from Paxton.

That brief was authored by Phillip Jauregui, an attorney at the Judicial Action Group, which says on its website that it works for “judicial renewal” and calls for “a Third Great Awakening.”

Trump and his campaign legal team have filed dozens of lawsuits in lower courts seeking to void election results and have state legislatures appoint pro-Trump electors.

Many of those cases have already been dismissed — but Trump is still pursuing legal challenges in key states, even with less than a week remaining before electors meet to cast their votes.
Click to expand...

Here's the response:
e1e87826-6961-402c-9af6-ccdcc5e09eaf.png



EDIT: 22 States countersue Texas. -

92fd4607-df19-4b9f-a95f-135294079c98.png


 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: the fall of man, Nguyen Van Phuoc, EmuWarsVeteran and 7 others
WhimsicalTrolli said:
Because Hopkins lied or exaggerated about the ballot stuffing. He said "he thought he heard it" broke down in minutes, and Veritas didn't tell him to get a lawyer or offered legal council. But the cnn leaks were decent.

But that's my opinion ig.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the guy was dumb enough to speak to an investigator without legal representation, but the fact that the guy didn't even make it a secret that he was trying to twist his arm taints the value of that interview.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid and WhimsicalTrolli
Gustav Schuchardt said:
To be fair that guy might be bullshitting too. Aka 'What do I need to promise you to make you vote for Ossoff? Six new SCOTUS judges? I'll offer you three."

Ossoff is just some jobber. There's no way he'd be in on the number of SCOTUS justices they're planning on adding.
Click to expand...
Three makes sense though. It would completely nullify the Trump appointees. Of course this would still give SCOTUS a nominal conservative majority, even though we all know Roberts always cucks, so optically the Democrats could hide behind Roberts as the reason they've done nothing wrong. Sort of in the same way that they point to Controlled Opposition Fox News siding with them as proof that conservatives are just on the wrong side of an issue.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: DudeWeedLol, spiritofamermaid, Bartleby and 1 other person
The WCT said:


Here's the response:
View attachment 1779880


EDIT: 22 States countersue Texas. -

View attachment 1779900

Click to expand...

I've only read the first few pages but they are claiming that they have already dismissed a number of frivolous lawsuits pertaining to the texas suit. Yea they did that through laches not on a evidentiary basis. So they are just asking SCOTUS to affirm their bullshit reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marchesa of the Vast
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back