Trump files motion to argue his case to SC

[Trausti]

It's ALSO sedition. I prefer "treason" because people - notably, even trumpsuckers - understand it.
And it triggers Trausti.

It's time to start calling things what they are. Some misinformation is just lies, and some seditious acts are committed with obviously treasonous intent.

True. Your ignorance tiggers me. Thanks.

Sorry that the obvious so readily eludes you. Call the WAAaaaambulance.

Oh, right - your mango menace has manged things so well that they have nowhere to take you... never mind!

How Nazi of you.

 

[Elixir]

Sorry that the obvious so readily eludes you. Call the WAAaaaambulance.

Oh, right - your mango menace has manged things so well that they have nowhere to take you... never mind!

How Nazi of you.

You win. Your ignorance is even more invincibler than mine.

 

[Angry Floof]

There's just no guidelines or principles or boundaries to make them stop and think, "OK, that is wrong."

Oh yeah? Just try and take a dollar of their god-given profits for the hell-spawned "common good"!

If their authority figure/savior/strongman took it, they'd be fine. They'll gleefully believe he'll give it back plus interest. They'll believe it's for a good cause, etc.

Oh, I forgot to mention the part where a trump cultist actually will stop and say "That is not OK," and that's only when the stupidity, cruelty, violence, and utter lack of decency comes back to bite them personally, like that hypocrite Gabriel Sterling who, after four years of his in-group's behavior is only now condemning it when it got turned on him.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

As I understand it, their argument will be that because the changes to the state's voting rules (in light of the pandemic) weren't enacted by the state legislatures they are unconstitutional. The problem is that that argument is invalid because they did not make the argument prior to the election. They're basically arguing to change the rules they agreed to after the game is over. It's a legal principle but I don't remember what it's called. Maybe some of the legal eagles here can remember it.

It's called the principle of latches. It was cited in the PA brief to Paxton brief.

The Latches Doctrine is a legal common law defense in an equitable action that “bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiff's undue delay in seeking relief.” This doctrine is based on the idea that the courts should not aid those who take an inordinate amount of time to raise their claims.

 

[ZiprHead]

To disfranchize voters who cast their votes in good faith would be overkill x 10,000,000 if indeed there was a procedural mistake at the state level.

Not to mention a lot of these congress critters bringing this suit were elected on those same ballots.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's treason to try to subvert our government.

Focusing on it being filing a lawsuit is a distraction--what's important is the objective, not the action.

 

[Trausti]

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

It's treason to try to subvert our government.

Focusing on it being filing a lawsuit is a distraction--what's important is the objective, not the action.

How is contesting an election subverting government? Happens nearly every election, someone, somewhere, contests an election. That is no subversion. Subversion is the effort to overthrow government. If you're contesting an election, you're inherently recogonizing that government.

 

[Trausti]

Sorry that the obvious so readily eludes you. Call the WAAaaaambulance.

Oh, right - your mango menace has manged things so well that they have nowhere to take you... never mind!

How Nazi of you.

You win. Your ignorance is even more invincibler than mine.

As apparently words no longer have their common meaning, I accept your apology.

 

[Angry Floof]

You win. Your ignorance is even more invincibler than mine.

As apparently words no longer have their common meaning, I accept your apology.

Well, we know what the words "seditious abuse of the judicial process" mean.

 

[Trausti]

You win. Your ignorance is even more invincibler than mine.

As apparently words no longer have their common meaning, I accept your apology.

Well, we know what the words "seditious abuse of the judicial process" mean.

I don't care what you do in your bedroom.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, we know what the words "seditious abuse of the judicial process" mean.

I don't care what you do in your bedroom.

I figured you'd deflect. Obviously, "seditious abuse of the judicial process" is a string of words you don't want to address.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

It's treason to try to subvert our government.

Focusing on it being filing a lawsuit is a distraction--what's important is the objective, not the action.

It is grossly unconstitutional, and they lost again. At some point, they either need to make with a fucking coup or get off the pot. Granted, if I was raking in $200 million from the dumbest political supporters in America who have actually bought into these obvious lies... who knows.

But yeah, Trump is an asshole and anti-Democracy... much like his supporters and every asshole that enjoined on that bullshit Texas "lawsuit".

 

[jab]

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.

What makes it really tricky is that sometimes, often perhaps, he knows he's lying, but he can talk himself into it, which seems to be the case here, by a combination of wishful thinking and people offering himself rotten evidence which he slurps up with delectation.

 

[jab]

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.

As I understand it, their argument will be that because the changes to the state's voting rules (in light of the pandemic) weren't enacted by the state legislatures they are unconstitutional. The problem is that that argument is invalid because they did not make the argument prior to the election. They're basically arguing to change the rules they agreed to after the game is over. It's a legal principle but I don't remember what it's called. Maybe some of the legal eagles here can remember it.

This argument has already failed in the courts at the State level in all 4 states (and Arizona). The proper thing to do have done would be to amalgamate theses suits and have the original appelants appeal to your Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court has refused the Rupug pile-on lawsuit, it is interesting that the dissent seems to say, yes file it (on a technicality), but we, the dissenters think the suit, at least as to teh remedies sought, is shit.

 

[bilby]

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.

It's really not.

In the United States, treason is defined very clearly in the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason

So it requires an act of war by the offender, or their support of foreigners engaged in acts of war, against the United States.

The US definition is rather ideosyncratic, as it is a deliberate attempt to move away from treason being defined by its effect on the person of the king.

The original offence of treason was specifically and explicitly an offence against the monarch as head of state, and the Australian definition reflects that:

causes the death or harm, resulting in death, imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or Prime Minister; 

levies war, or does an act preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth; 

intentionally assists, by any means whatsoever, an enemy, at war with the Commonwealth; 

intentionally assists, by ‘any means whatever’, another country or organisation that is ‘engaged in armed hostilities’ against the Australian Defence Force (ADF); 

instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or 

forms an intention to do any of the above acts and manifests that intention by an overt act. 


Treason was, until very recently (ie just before the establishment of the USA and Australia as nations) only defined as an offence against the monarch; And as the USA has established the office of President as an elected monarch, it's arguable that opposing Trump in any way is 'the very definition of treason', as it was originally understood.

It's possible that Trump's actions could be treasonous AFTER Biden is sworn in, as at that point he would be offending against the President of the United States; But sadly US law moved on past that definition a couple of centuries ago.

 

[jab]

It's ALSO sedition. I prefer "treason" because people - notably, even trumpsuckers - understand it.
And it triggers Trausti.

It's time to start calling things what they are. Some misinformation is just lies, and some seditious acts are committed with obviously treasonous intent.

I used to be astounded at the ability of right wing authoritarians to accept every new level of fascism and stupidity like it's nothing. But considering how you have to forfeit your own conscience to even support a fascist movement in the first place, it's not at all surprising. There's just no guidelines or principles or boundaries to make them stop and think, "OK, that is wrong." They're like bottomless vessels into which anything conceivable can be inserted and there is nothing at all to filter or discern or inspect it in any way that resembles reason or honest examination. Everything inserted by the authoritative mouthpieces is normal and fine no matter what it is. They're perfect obedience machines.

delete "right-wing", and replace "fascist" with "authoritarian" or "cult-of-the-leader", and I agree with your statement. Otherwise it is a bit one-sided, and America-at-the-present-moment centric.

 

[Ford]

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

It's treason to try to subvert our government.

Focusing on it being filing a lawsuit is a distraction--what's important is the objective, not the action.

It is grossly unconstitutional, and they lost again. At some point, they either need to make with a fucking coup or get off the pot. Granted, if I was raking in $200 million from the dumbest political supporters in America who have actually bought into these obvious lies... who knows.

But yeah, Trump is an asshole and anti-Democracy... much like his supporters and every asshole that enjoined on that bullshit Texas "lawsuit".

Let's be clear: The lawsuit was filed in order to overturn the will of the voters in those states that went for Biden instead of Trump.

The legal reasoning - if you can call it that - behind the suit was "we don't like the outcome and we want it to be different." There was no evidence presented that Texas even had the right to tell other states how to conduct their elections, let alone evidence that anything untoward happened in those states' elections.

The suit is not just anti-democratic and without merit, but also anti-republican with a small "r." It is often said that the US is not a democracy...it is a democratic republic. This suit tried to throw out both. It said that not only is the will of the electorate invalid, but the states in question should not have the right to determine the outcome of their own elections for no other reason than that it upsets one political party.

This is more than just challenging the results of an election. This is challenging the very notion that an election has validity. This lawsuit - which again the whole Supreme Court said in effect "I don't fucking think so" - was an assault on our very system of government.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's ALSO sedition. I prefer "treason" because people - notably, even trumpsuckers - understand it.
And it triggers Trausti.

It's time to start calling things what they are. Some misinformation is just lies, and some seditious acts are committed with obviously treasonous intent.

I used to be astounded at the ability of right wing authoritarians to accept every new level of fascism and stupidity like it's nothing. But considering how you have to forfeit your own conscience to even support a fascist movement in the first place, it's not at all surprising. There's just no guidelines or principles or boundaries to make them stop and think, "OK, that is wrong." They're like bottomless vessels into which anything conceivable can be inserted and there is nothing at all to filter or discern or inspect it in any way that resembles reason or honest examination. Everything inserted by the authoritative mouthpieces is normal and fine no matter what it is. They're perfect obedience machines.

delete "right-wing", and replace "fascist" with "authoritarian" or "cult-of-the-leader", and I agree with your statement. Otherwise it is a bit one-sided, and America-at-the-present-moment centric.

I didn't make up the term "right wing authoritarianism." People in the relevant fields of research did. There is a reason for "right wing" to be included in the phrase.

I can't believe how many times this has been explained here for years now, over and over.

Right wing authoritarianism arises from a distinct set of cognitive traits, behaviors, and concepts: authority worship; insistence on tradition; insistence on conformity for everyone and not just the group; willingness to punish outgroups in whatever heinous ways the authority figures deem appropriate; belief that the outside world is evil, untrustworthy, dangerous; belief in the moral superiority of the in-group and its belief system; belief that doubt and questioning are sinful, forbidden; willingness to police each other; callousness toward members of outgroups; willingness to subsume one's own conscience to that of authority figures and/or authoritative texts.

The Bible or Mein Kampf, America's ideological and political disease is right wing authoritarianism, like it or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

It's treason to try to subvert our government.

Focusing on it being filing a lawsuit is a distraction--what's important is the objective, not the action.

How is contesting an election subverting government? Happens nearly every election, someone, somewhere, contests an election. That is no subversion. Subversion is the effort to overthrow government. If you're contesting an election, you're inherently recogonizing that government.

If there were a sound basis for it, yes--but the long string of losses says otherwise.

 

[Trausti]

How is contesting an election subverting government? Happens nearly every election, someone, somewhere, contests an election. That is no subversion. Subversion is the effort to overthrow government. If you're contesting an election, you're inherently recogonizing that government.

If there were a sound basis for it, yes--but the long string of losses says otherwise.

Okay, now you’re confusing things. Whether Trump has a meritorious basis to challenge an election result is entirely separate from subversion. Subversion is the Weather Underground, not a lawsuit.