Scrutable

nekomatic wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:25 am I’ve skipped numerous pages of this thread because, well, there were a lot. But I see people getting very agitated about Trump 2024 where a few weeks ago it seemed like we were doubting whether Trump would keep the dementia at bay long enough to make it through Trump 2020. Has something changed?

nekomatic wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:25 am I’ve skipped numerous pages of this thread because, well, there were a lot. But I see people getting very agitated about Trump 2024 where a few weeks ago it seemed like we were doubting whether Trump would keep the dementia at bay long enough to make it through Trump 2020. Has something changed?

FlammableFlower wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:27 pm And Giuliani's mask-less antics have caused Arizona's legislature to shutdown for a week

dyqik wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:49 pm It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

dyqik wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:53 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:49 pm It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

Two down by 11:30am.

dyqik wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:36 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:53 pm

dyqik wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:49 pm It's 7:30am on Monday morning, and the kraken idiots have already had another injunction request thrown out.

Two down by 11:30am.

Two more lawsuits filed. Alleging things in state courts that the state Supreme Courts have already rejected outright.

bmforre wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:29 pm Trump trying hard to sabotage election results
Question: Are these attempts impeachable?

Christopher Krebs, who was fired Nov. 17 by President Trump after he refuted the president’s claims of widespread election fraud, singled out comments made almost two weeks later by attorney Joseph diGenova, who said Krebs should face the same punishment inflicted on those convicted of treason because he had asserted that the 2020 election was the most secure in history.

“He should be drawn and quartered,” diGenova said on the outlet Newsmax, a third defendant. “Taken out at dawn and shot.”

FlammableFlower wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:58 pm So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

bmforre wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:00 pm A call for impeachment may serve as a useful reminder of how treasonous it is trying to overturn an election.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:15 pm

FlammableFlower wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:58 pm So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

Chance of success is zero. Another PA case was dismissed just now, btw.

The electors are certified, the cases are dismissed, and state law gives the power to certify electors to the Governor, not the legislature. They could try and make a retroactive change to the law, but a) they aren't in session, b) the State Supreme Court would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional (State constitution) and c) the Governor has a veto over it.

If the Senate votes to dispute the PA electoral slate (the House won't, as it has a D majority), then the Governor's say-so breaks the tie.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:47 pm New Lolsuit.

Texas is trying to sue Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over how those states ran their elections. In other words, Texas is trying to overturn the idea of States' Rights.

Which I'm sure will be popular in Texas.

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:25 pm

dyqik wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:15 pm

FlammableFlower wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:58 pm So now he's going for leaning on Pennsylvania and there's a number of Republicans who seem to be lining up with him there. Thoughts on likelihood of success? Or even progress in tbe direction he wants?

Chance of success is zero. Another PA case was dismissed just now, btw.

The electors are certified, the cases are dismissed, and state law gives the power to certify electors to the Governor, not the legislature. They could try and make a retroactive change to the law, but a) they aren't in session, b) the State Supreme Court would almost certainly declare it unconstitutional (State constitution) and c) the Governor has a veto over it.

If the Senate votes to dispute the PA electoral slate (the House won't, as it has a D majority), then the Governor's say-so breaks the tie.

And SCOTUS has now denied the PA appeal to them.

lpm wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:35 pm The Texas suit cannot go anywhere because they can't get standing.

As a reminder, the 3 tests that the plaintiff must prove to get Federal courts involved are:

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact". This means an injury which is "(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent".
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.

They can't show injury to Texas as their right to vote was not hurt. They cannot prove causal connection. There is no possible redress that a court could give Texas.

lpm wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:05 am Yes, reading up about the law, it's an "original action" which is a state vs state case, which is federal. But the plaintiff still has the burden of proving standing.

Republicans don't want any of these cases to succeed. If Texas wins now, then California could sue Florida next time - claiming Florida's voter suppression injures California.