Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
A case being docketed means it met the filing requirements. The clerk has to docket it (give it a docket number) in order to consider the petition. In making this statement, I am free of any bias.
From what I remember reading about the case, they were not appealing for SCOTUS to hear the case, they were seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the state from certifying the results and selecting electors. IIRC, the GOP did not request SCOTUS to accept the case and hear oral arguments. Rudy and Jenna said they would appeal their side of the case to SCOTUS back at Thanksgiving (but have not done so yet).
It's an embarrassment from a state AG who should know better. I don't think they'll even get past lack of standing to get to any of the "substantive" arguments.
Serious question: can the Trump Legal Team file appeals while Rudy is in the hospital and Jenna is (presumably) quarantined? What is the procedure there?
Amy Howe at Scotusblog writes with very little commentary or opinion/bias. That said, her stuff is pretty much just the facts and she expresses no opinion on the merits. Her short piece on the Texas lawsuit is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/texas-tries-hail-mary-to-block-election-outcome/#more-298075
I think this is correct. It was referred to Alito just based on him being assigned to that geographic region. He could have granted or denied it himself, but referred it to the entire court as one would expect. The fact there were no public / written dissents doesn't mean it was necessarily 9-0, just that they didn't have the necessary 5 votes to grant the request.
I would like to see a lot of this for filing these asinine lawsuits. These lawyers are acting like this is some sort of carnival game.
What do you mean by the bolded statement? How does one determine constitutional law analysis to be bias or unbiased?
Cracks me up when people ask for unrolls of 5 tweets.
I want to make a joke but it just isn't funny anymore.
No need to be hyperbolic. It's not all Trump's fault.
Most (all?) of them aren't even "fraud cases". They're.........I dunno. "Irregularity cases"?
Huh? Seriously, the left created a con man? This has rarely happened in US history. Huey Long is the best comparison I can think of.
100%. Mostly because both sides do a woeful job of passing the facts on to their supporters. Politics really sucks.
clearly it's not all trumps fault. trump is a symptom of a rot inherent in American politics - a rejection of facts and expertise in favor of wild conspiracy theories, a win at all costs/no compromise stance, abdication of conservative principles once held dear, and demonization of political opponents. This is much more than one man, and has been brewing beneath the surface for decades, if not generations.
He also tagged the SC with a tweet claiming he won since no president had won Ohio and Florida and lost the election. Which is false.
I just read up on this since I like to keep track of efforts to invalidate my vote.Plaintiffs asked the court to treat the application for injunctive relief additionally as a petition for certiorari,CletiusMaximus said:
7-10 states may join the Texas lawsuit *IF* the Supreme Court agrees to hear it
Why get in the mud on this? Lloyd Christmas had a better chance with Mary Swanson than this utter nonsense will have in the Supreme Court.
I saw that for SCOTUS to hear a completely new case would require 5 justices. Vladeck posted earlier today that all the current members of SCOTUS, only two of them had ever voted to hear a state vs. state case. The point being, to date, the current justices have been reluctant to intervene in these types of filings.
