So Um I’m kinda worried about that Texas case

[President Johnson]

What is ridiculous is that Republican Attorneys General from 17 states back this case.

(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia)


Fact of the matter is that Republicans hate democracy.

This is the saddest part, yes. But it didn't start with Trump. They were into voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering before. The only others who do this are authoritarian regimes.

It's beyond worrying the Republican Party seems to be on the same track as Hungarian Fidesz. Once a conservative party, it turned into a right wing populist cult embracing authoritarianism.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337099122839580674

Ohio filed an amicus brief opposing Texas which shouldn't be surprising but is a nice thing to see.

That took courage and Common Sense from Dave Yost. Good on him.

[BudgieForce]

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337124340077248518

Nice to see other states speaking out against this.

[Crumpets]

Is this supposed to get some kind of response today from SCOTUS, or do we not know the timeline until it happens?

[Dereich]

Is this supposed to get some kind of response today from SCOTUS, or do we not know the timeline until it happens?

The next step is SCOTUS deciding if Texas has leave to file a complaint. There's no real timeframe for when they will issue their decision. If they rule against Texas my guess is that you'd expect a 7-2/6-3 one sentence denial either tomorrow or Monday. If they do agree to hear the case they'd probably also address the motion for enjoining the defendant state's electors so I'd guess it would be a bit longer.

[BudgieForce]

Is this supposed to get some kind of response today from SCOTUS, or do we not know the timeline until it happens?

The next step is SCOTUS deciding if Texas has leave to file a complaint. There's no real timeframe for when they will issue their decision. If they rule against Texas my guess is that you'd expect a 7-2/6-3 one sentence denial either tomorrow or Monday. If they do agree to hear the case they'd probably also address the motion for enjoining the defendant state's electors so I'd guess it would be a bit longer.

I really hope it doesn't come to that. I know the case would have almost no chance of succeeding, but the longer this drags out, the worse it is for everyone. Hopefully the SCOTUS sees that.

[GALeftist]

Delicious.

[Dereich]

"Temproary"

Cmon, Pennsylvania. Leave that kind of thing to Sidney Powell.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Don't these people have spell check?

[Hammy]

What is ridiculous is that Republican Attorneys General from 17 states back this case.

(Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia)


Fact of the matter is that Republicans hate democracy.

This is the saddest part, yes. But it didn't start with Trump. They were into voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering before. The only others who do this are authoritarian regimes.

It's beyond worrying the Republican Party seems to be on the same track as Hungarian Fidesz. Once a conservative party, it turned into a right wing populist cult embracing authoritarianism.

McCarthyism indicates they've already been there for over a half century.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Little bit of SCOTUS trivia: SCOTUS tradition is that the newest Justice doesn't write any decisions until the first unanimous one, in which case the newest Justice always writes that one. That means if the SCOTUS hears the case but rejects it unanimously, that would create a somewhat ironic situation of ACB having to write the decision. Since I suspect she doesn't want that to be her first decision, she may just vote to deny cert. Although I suppose she could also avoid that by dissenting on some technical grounds (maybe more of a concur/dissent opinion then, not sure if that would be considered "unanimous.")

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is this supposed to get some kind of response today from SCOTUS, or do we not know the timeline until it happens?

The next step is SCOTUS deciding if Texas has leave to file a complaint. There's no real timeframe for when they will issue their decision. If they rule against Texas my guess is that you'd expect a 7-2/6-3 one sentence denial either tomorrow or Monday. If they do agree to hear the case they'd probably also address the motion for enjoining the defendant state's electors so I'd guess it would be a bit longer.

Does the fact that the Electoral College votes on Monday come into play here? Actually makes it difficult to even hear the case even if they wanted to.

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337120215340027910

What is a clear and unmistakable signal? I'm assuming the SC can't disbar the 17 AGs or force them to resign, nor even prohibit them from filing future cases.

[Dereich]

What is a clear and unmistakable signal? I'm assuming the SC can't disbar the 17 AGs or force them to resign, nor even prohibit them from filing future cases.

It is almost certainly just fluff. I suppose SCOTUS could remove the plaintiff's attorneys from the Supreme Court Bar and thus remove their ability to argue before the court, but I doubt that is what this is referring to. Plus it would usually be the state's Solicitor General, not the Attorney General, who would argue a case before the Supreme Court.

[GeorgiaModerate]

What is a clear and unmistakable signal? I'm assuming the SC can't disbar the 17 AGs or force them to resign, nor even prohibit them from filing future cases.

It is almost certainly just fluff. I suppose SCOTUS could remove the plaintiff's attorneys from the Supreme Court Bar and thus remove their ability to argue before the court, but I doubt that is what this is referring to. Plus it would usually be the state's Solicitor General, not the Attorney General, who would argue a case before the Supreme Court.

I suppose this is too much to hope for, but I'd like to see the Court deny the request with a very strongly worded opinion, along the lines of "this petition is a direct threat to the Constitution and the nation".

[Bomster]

Jesus Christ how is this happening? I know it probably won’t succeed but why?

[DaleCooper]

People actually think this is going to work?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Jesus Christ how is this happening? I know it probably won’t succeed but why?

1. Texas AG Ken Paxton, the originator, is under investigation for criminal activities and it's widely believed that this is his way of fishing for a pardon from Trump.

2. The rest of the state AGs are shoring up their credentials with Trump's base for future elections.  It's possible a few of them may actually believe in the argument, but I suspect that in most cases it's just cynical political calculation.

3. For the Republican representatives (federal and state) supporting the suit: see (2).

[Hammy]

Jesus Christ how is this happening? I know it probably won’t succeed but why?

Because Republicans are fascists and terrorists. Their reaction in 2008 told me this was going to happen sooner or later, and I'll reiterate I'm shocked it's taken this long to get to this point in the first place.

[Bomster]

Jesus Christ how is this happening? I know it probably won’t succeed but why?

1. Texas AG Ken Paxton, the originator, is under investigation for criminal activities and it's widely believed that this is his way of fishing for a pardon from Trump.

2. The rest of the state AGs are shoring up their credentials with Trump's base for future elections.  It's possible a few of them may actually believe in the argument, but I suspect that in most cases it's just cynical political calculation.

3. For the Republican representatives (federal and state) supporting the suit: see (2).

So to save their skin and to win political favors. God I hate this country’s politics.

[7,052,770]

If 75-80% of Trump supporters honestly believe he's going to be inaugurated because that's what all their media and politicians are telling them, how are they going to react on January 20 when he isn't?

These AGs are really playing with fire...

[Bomster]

If 75-80% of Trump supporters honestly believe he's going to be inaugurated because that's what all their media and politicians are telling them, how are they going to react on January 20 when he isn't?

These AGs are really playing with fire...

Do what the right has done well. Reject reality.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1337185337584586754

[JA]

If 75-80% of Trump supporters honestly believe he's going to be inaugurated because that's what all their media and politicians are telling them, how are they going to react on January 20 when he isn't?

These AGs are really playing with fire...

However chaotic and dangerous things seem to be now, with their guy still President, just wait until he isn't President anymore. 2021 and, likely, the rest of this decade will be one full of right-wing domestic terrorism ranging from mass shootings to politically motivated bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, and other acts of terror by the right-wing as they resist the democratic changes that they feel are "unAmerican." Rush Limbaugh has already expressed the view, on-air, that secession may be the only path forward for conservatives since it seems impossible to him that conservatives can continue sharing the same country as people from the coastal cities like New York. They're losing their grip on power, which they largely retained until this point using gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics; now that even that isn't sufficient to rig the system in their favor, they'll turn to non-democratic means to achieve their ends.

[ugabug]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1337185337584586754

A Republican whose morality outways his politics? Obviously he's a RINO.