Trump files motion to argue his case to SC

[Angry Floof]

Trump files motion to argue in person before U.S. Supreme Court that he won election
If the justices let Trump join a Texas lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a president asking the top court to decide that the millions of votes did not count

Trump, defeated by President-elect Joe Biden in the Nov. 3 election, filed a motion with the court asking the nine justices to let him intervene and become a plaintiff in the suit filed on Tuesday by Republican-governed Texas against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

If the justices let Trump join the lawsuit, it would create the extraordinary circumstance of a sitting U.S. president asking the top American court to decide that the millions of votes cast in the four states did not count. The Republican president lost to Biden in the four election battleground states after winning them in the 2016 election.

Derpity derp derp doodie doo.

 

[Politesse]

An interesting opportunity to nab the man for perjury, if so.

 

[Ford]

I don't for one moment think that they're actually arguing that Trump himself would be the one arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

Because that would be monumentally stupid.




Okay at this point I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Trumpo isn't a bright, intelligent person. But what he has going for him is that there is a lot of dimwitted, irrational behavior to be accounted for out there in the population. His method is to ally himself with this behavior and to make no apologies for it's practice. As such, he has a lot of company.

And by making no apologies for such behavior he normalizes it and even raises its reputation. He gives the behavior legitimacy, odd as that sounds.

Think of a classroom with an instructor. What Trumpo is doing is telling the teacher that he is just as smart as the teacher when it comes to making decisions about what is correct and accurate about the material presented in the class. Trumpo is never going to formally teach classes and neither is anyone like him ever going to formally teach classes. The reason for this is that they will never be able to master the material. Whether it's a manifestation of Dunning Kruger isn't important, what's important is that such scientifically illiterate behavior has always been popular and widespread. Trumpo is merely capitalizing on that.

It used to be that if a person wanted to disseminate their idiocy they had to have paper and pen and get their message out. Today a person can get their message out simply with a few clicks of a keyboard. I don't need to read books from a library, everything I want to know is fingertips away. And I can make hundreds of millions of dollars simply by giving all the idiocy out there a voice. The teacher was wrong, I know the answer, and I have lots of company.

It's really a very interesting dynamic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't for one moment think that they're actually arguing that Trump himself would be the one arguing the case before the Supreme Court.

Because that would be monumentally stupid.




Okay at this point I wouldn't put it past them.

I think he wants Sen. Cruz (yeah... that guy that Trump wasn't all to polite with) to speak for his case. Why Sen. Cruz would want to try and explain to the Court why the state of Texas has standing for an election in Georgia or how a binomial analysis of a couple elections and some numerology should be treated seriously and not laughed away at... I haven't the slightest clue.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Justice Roberts: Now, Mr. ...Cruz, I have read your pleading on the res judicata, and you assert locus standi, correct? You claim an actus reus on the part of the several states in the complaint, that, somehow, a force majeure incapacitated the alleged injured party from equal treatment. However, doesn't the finding in the ACLU's brief establish that in pari delicto exists, and doesn't that nullify part of your pleading?
Cruz: ACLU...Communists...Antifa...Jesus.
Justice Barrett: I like that last part. I have one question to clarify these issues. Did your client actually say 'pussy' on tape?
Cruz: Wasn't his voice...set-up...witch hunt. Jesus.
Justice Thomas: (shuffles papers, adjusts glasses, looks up, shuffles more papers, readjusts glasses) ...Here's one. Was your father lurking behind a Tutti Frutti Sno Cone cart, a little cart on wheels, on the Grassy Knoll?
Cruz: Jesus!!! Can we recess? Like, for a week?

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

 

[Elixir]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

He also believes he's a very stable genius... none of this is a surprise, except maybe to Metaphor, Jason H, Swizzle, or others who scoffed at the idea that Trump would not concede the election if he lost (and have since gone silent on the subject).

What I do find surprising is that something like 106 elected representatives and 17 State AGs have signed on to treason.
They are either as stupid as Trump himself, and/or have estimated that the intelligence of the electorate to which they are trying to appeal is borderline retarded on average.

 

[Politesse]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

Oh, he believes everything he says, implicitly. He believes that if you feel something very strongly than it must be true, and so do a lot of his followers. It's why they think he's an honest guy - he seems like he means everything.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

He also believes he's a very stable genius... none of this is a surprise, except maybe to Metaphor, Jason H, Swizzle, or others who scoffed at the idea that Trump would not concede the election if he lost (and have since gone silent on the subject).

What I do find surprising is that something like 106 elected representatives and 17 State AGs have signed on to treason.
They are either as stupid as Trump himself, and/or have estimated that the intelligence of the electorate to which they are trying to appeal is borderline retarded on average.

Not treason. Sedition.

 

[Atheos]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

He also believes he's a very stable genius... none of this is a surprise, except maybe to Metaphor, Jason H, Swizzle, or others who scoffed at the idea that Trump would not concede the election if he lost (and have since gone silent on the subject).

What I do find surprising is that something like 106 elected representatives and 17 State AGs have signed on to treason.
They are either as stupid as Trump himself, and/or have estimated that the intelligence of the electorate to which they are trying to appeal is borderline retarded on average.

Use of the word "treason" in this context seems to be a bit of hyperbole to me. I have to admit this case has me a little worried. Part of the reason for that worry is that I do not know how the 4 states in question modified their requirements for mail-in ballot eligibility. It's my understanding that the suit specifies that the US Constitution requires any changes to the election process for any state to be made by the legislature of the states. The suit is claiming that the state legislatures were not involved in altering the mail-in ballot eligibility requirements, and that therefore the alterations (to accommodate social distancing with respect to COVID-19) were in violation of federal law.

Scorched earth is just fine by their standards even for the states who did the same thing but are now signing onto this suit. If they can invalidate the entire electoral college and have the House of Representatives select the president, Trump wins.

 

[Elixir]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

He also believes he's a very stable genius... none of this is a surprise, except maybe to Metaphor, Jason H, Swizzle, or others who scoffed at the idea that Trump would not concede the election if he lost (and have since gone silent on the subject).

What I do find surprising is that something like 106 elected representatives and 17 State AGs have signed on to treason.
They are either as stupid as Trump himself, and/or have estimated that the intelligence of the electorate to which they are trying to appeal is borderline retarded on average.

Use of the word "treason" in this context seems to be a bit of hyperbole to me.

I don't know a more accurate word to refer to actions taken to abolish the principles of government upon which this nation was founded. It's not like they are "not exactly trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election", because that's precisely what they are advocating.

Trying to overthrow a duly elected government is the very definition of treason.

 

[southernhybrid]

I can't imagine that SCOTUS will even take this case, since each state has it's own rules regarding elections. There are no federal election guidelines that states must follow. This is all bullshit that is being supported by asshole Republicans who value their power more than they value Democracy or the American people. It appears that they beleive they must look like they are supporting the Trump base. The problem is that all of this has the potential to make people stop trusting our elections. There is no evidence of wide spread fraud but Trump and his toadies in Congress have convinced a lot of people who that our elections aren't fair.

Of course, it is a bit ironic that the party which is always screaming state's rights matter seems to be saying that states rights don't matter when it comes to elections. I just hope this will be resolved soon.

 

[Elixir]

I can't imagine that SCOTUS will even take this case, since each state has it's own rules regarding elections.

I can't imagine that SCOTUS will even take this case since they probably don't want to see our cities torched, including their own homes. Not that it won't happen to some degree anyhow, but it's not in their interest to make themselves the focus of the violence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble is, Texas and the Assholes General that are joining in, have no standing. Texas isn't harmed in any way by the elections in other states, therefore there is no remedy to a harm that doesn't exist. A large part of the Texas is "what are the odds" of a Biden win despite a couple irrelevant metrics. Heck, they cited an economist's binomial analysis of the election, which somehow manages to presume that each vote is a random coin flip. And if there were any technical issues with how the election was held, SCOTUS is only supposed to act if the remaining courts can't address it themselves. And we've already seen the result of those cases. And finally, I don't believe fraud is mentioned in the lawsuit, which is interesting seeing that it has come up in accusations here and there with Trump and his crazy lawyer.

What SCOTUS needs to do is affirmatively smack the asses of the filers and Trump.

 

[TomC]

According to Trump's niece, the psychologist, he actually believes he won the election.

He also believes he's a very stable genius... none of this is a surprise, except maybe to Metaphor, Jason H, Swizzle, or others who scoffed at the idea that Trump would not concede the election if he lost (and have since gone silent on the subject).

What I do find surprising is that something like 106 elected representatives and 17 State AGs have signed on to treason.
They are either as stupid as Trump himself, and/or have estimated that the intelligence of the electorate to which they are trying to appeal is borderline retarded on average.

Not treason. Sedition.

What Trump and his cronies are getting up to about the election is seditious.

The treason is other stuff.

But it's both.
Tom

 

[marc]

What should be done is tell Texas that if they insist on trying to push this through, then the blue states will get together and file lawsuits to overturn all elections in red states due to all the voter suppression that they do. Think there is a bit more evidence for voter suppression than they have evidence that mail in ballots were in any way fraudulent.

 

[Atheos]

I agree what they're doing is reprehensible and I truly believe that if they succeed they will have overthrown the results of a free and fair election.

However - the laws are what they are. The US Constitution (along with the relevant amendments) does not make selecting the president the result of a popular vote election. It is the result of the electoral college process with a fallback to the House of Representatives if the electoral college is unable to declare a clear winner. It is not treason to insist that the provisions in the constitution are adhered to.

If they succeed in this effort it will be the result of a lawsuit exploiting a technicality. I don't know how these states went about changing the eligibility requirements for mail-in voting so I don't know if the lawsuit has any teeth or not. But if the plaintiff can convince the judges that the changes were made in a way that violated constitutional law things could get really bad.

If (as marc) suggests the blue states have all the rest of the elections thrown out and the red states succeed in having all the elections in states where mail-in-voting requirements were "illegally" changed the result will be that the House of Representatives will select the president. And they will select Trump because of how that is written.

Lawsuits have often been won on technicalities in spite of what is right. The legislation that allows the House to vote at a rate of one vote per state (with Montana's 1 million population being represented by the same number of votes as California's 40 million) is the real pisspoor link in all of this, but it's still the law. Winning a lawsuit via a technicality, no matter how unethical or immoral, is not treason.

 

[Elixir]

It is not treason to insist that the provisions in the constitution are adhered to.

It is treason to try to overthrow the election results after the provisions in the Constitution have been adhered to and met. And they have been adhered to and met. The traitors have presented no evidence to the contrary. Yes, they have loudly screamed "FRAUD!", but have not dared to do so in court because lying in court is illegal and lawyers have a peculiar aversion to serving jail time. But spouting falsehoods to justify treason doesn't make it "not treason".

The treason is other stuff.

But it's both.
Tom

I agree that it's both. The trumpsucking public doesn't understand sedition or seditious behavior. They mostly do understand treason, so that is the accusation I levy against them.

 

[Trausti]

It is not treason to insist that the provisions in the constitution are adhered to.

It is treason to try to overthrow the election results after the provisions in the Constitution have been adhered to. And they have. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Spouting falsehoods to justify treason doesn't make it "not treason".

It’s treason to file a lawsuit? That’s pretty stupid.