So Um I’m kinda worried about that Texas case

[Alben Barkley]

Jeb! is calling malarkey:

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/1337203239138242562?s=20

Jeb! should have been the nominee in 2016.

I think HRC would have beaten him.

Exactly why it should have been him!

Not really :

Bush/Walker 284
Clinton/Kaine 254


Hillary was really vulnerable in 2016 regardless as CO/VA hadn’t become strongly democratic yet to provide for the fact that WI/MI/PA was reverting at the very least to pre Obama levels(Obama strength there has clearly been an outlier). Also The GOP had recovered from the wreckage the Taft years did to the Ohio GOP by 2014 as well.

I think Jeb would still lose MI/PA though but having Walker on the ticket gives him WI/IA and gives him the presidency

I suppose that is a fairly realistic looking map for a matchup like that. I might've even given Bush NH making it 288-250.

LOL no. Jeb! was a horrible candidate who would have been obliterated by HRC. More likely he loses OH and IA than wins CO, VA, NV, NH, WI, any of that. In a Clinton/Bush redux, the country at that time would have preferred Clinton. He was the best opponent for her by far. And no, he would not have had even a fraction as much appeal to the rust belt as Trump, so the midwest does not return to pre-Obama numbers. He probably ends up doing worse than Romney.

Then how did W Bush have the appeal and while yes W Bush is a better candidate than Jeb , Kerry was a better candidate than Hillary

Well you answered it partly yourself: W was a better candidate than Jeb! But he also was extremely unpopular by 2016; part of the reason the midwest went so hard for Obama was in reaction to Bush’s failed, unpopular presidency. They would have gone just as hard for HRC had she won the nomination in 2008. That wasn’t the result of some special Obama magic. Reminder that BILL Clinton won those states soundly too. And in 2016, a Clinton/Bush redux with two uncharismatic candidates would have primarily been seen as a battle of the legacies of Bill and W. Bill’s was far more popular then, it’s not even close. I mean Trump was able to win the GOP nomination running against W’s legacy (while Jeb! suffered for it) while at the same time Clinton successfully won the nomination on her husband’s. Plus turnout would probably be pretty low in any case; Jeb! sure as hell does not fire up low propensity WWC voters like Trump and even W to a lesser extent did. So if nothing else, Hillary would inspire more people to vote for the first woman president than Jeb! and his guac bowls inspired anybody to do anything.

Also I don’t think I agree Kerry was a better candidate than Hillary. Hillary is more polarizing, but she could have been formidable against a bland generic R like Jeb! Trump was uniquely suited for her. Meanwhile Kerry is basically a bland generic D.

[Gass3268]

These people are unwell:

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337583392532160514?s=20

[Horus]

Oh thank God

[Bojack Horseman]

"sUpReMe cOuRt wIlL oVeRtUrN pEnNsYlVaNiA!!!!11!1!"

-SN2903

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[OSR stands with Israel]

Surprised ACB didnt turn out to be as right wing as Alito

ACB always seemed to have more of an institutionalist streak like Kavanaugh and Roberts.  She could plausibly be the new swing vote on some cases. 

Gorsuch is 100% hardcore in one direction or the other depending on the case.  He's probably left of Kagan and Breyer on Native American rights and many criminal justice issues and left of Roberts on LGBTQ issues, but he's probably the rightmost justice on several other issues. 

I’d Say Thomas is clearly the most right wing justice

[GoTfan]

Not sure of the veratiy of this, but I think the point is all of us can see him doing this:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1337571309266538496

[Horus]

lol people really thought the Supreme Court would overturn the election

No, but I thought there was an outside shot at them hearing the case which would've needlessly upped the tension even more.

[Non Swing Voter]

3 days after creation this thread already seems ridiculous in retrospect.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3 days after creation this thread already seems ridiculous in retrospect.

I wouldn't say it seems ridiculous. SCOTUS itself treating the case "with half a smile, and half a spurn, as housewives do, a Fly" was a foregone conclusion, but how much momentum this trash picked up among elected and mediatic Republicans was genuinely frightening to watch, and is a very bad sign of things to come.

[Alben Barkley]

I found a picture of the Republicans who STILL believe it's not over:

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/MatthewStiegler/status/1337596122861285378

Thoughts? I found this a little worrying. Obviously, I know that it doesn't affect anything, but I wish Alito and Thomas weren't such hacks.

[Alben Barkley]

https://twitter.com/MatthewStiegler/status/1337596122861285378

Thoughts? I found this a little worrying. Obviously, I know that it doesn't affect anything, but I wish Alito and Thomas weren't such hacks.

Honestly, if the worst is "We thought we had to hear it, but we still would have knocked it down because it's a garbage case," I find that reassuring, not worrying. Trump tried to destroy our democratic institutions, including the courts, but credit where it is due: The rule of law has held in the courtrooms of this nation. For now, at least.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/MatthewStiegler/status/1337596122861285378

Thoughts? I found this a little worrying. Obviously, I know that it doesn't affect anything, but I wish Alito and Thomas weren't such hacks.

Honestly, if the worst is "We thought we had to hear it, but we still would have knocked it down because it's a garbage case," I find that reassuring, not worrying. Trump tried to destroy our democratic institutions, including the courts, but credit where it is due: The rule of law has held in the courtrooms of this nation. For now, at least.

Well, this guy's read was that the "other relief" Alito and Thomas mention is not actually saying they wouldn't rule with the plaintiffs. Obv though not a lawyer (yet) so idk if that's true or what it says about Alito and Thomas's jurisprudence.

[Non Swing Voter]

https://twitter.com/MatthewStiegler/status/1337596122861285378

Thoughts? I found this a little worrying. Obviously, I know that it doesn't affect anything, but I wish Alito and Thomas weren't such hacks.

His read is embarrassingly bad.  It was 9-0.  They were talking about a technical procedural issue and explicitly said they were not inclined to give any other relief, i.e., they disagreed on the merits.  In some ways that goes even further than the others who just summarily dismissed it on standing.  Though they probably would rip apart each issue as well. 

[DINGO Joe]

Not sure of the veratiy of this, but I think the point is all of us can see him doing this:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1337571309266538496

It's his party and he'll cry if he wants too.

[Alben Barkley]

January 20 be like:

[Tender Branson]

Thank goodness this case was soundingly dismissed by the Supreme Court.

[smoltchanov]

Thank goodness this case was soundingly dismissed by the Supreme Court.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/MatthewStiegler/status/1337596122861285378

Thoughts? I found this a little worrying. Obviously, I know that it doesn't affect anything, but I wish Alito and Thomas weren't such hacks.

This is really a reach.

Yes, Alito and Thomas did not formally express a view on the merits of the case. Of course they didn't. This wasn't what the purpose of the decision was about. The decision was about whether they would hear the case or not. Alito and Thomas said they would based on a minority interpretation of a purely procedural question regarding original jurisdiction, and they felt the need to specify that they would grant no other relief. Meaning that, at most, if those two had prevailed, the SCOTUS would have agreed to hear the case without intervening in the election in any other way. While the Electoral College is set to meet in 3 days. To imagine a scenario where they'd go ahead and decide in Texas' favor after a couple weeks would be laughable.

Look, I find 9-0 decisions as satisfying as the next guy, but we just have to accept that sometimes there are weird procedural technicalities and idiosyncratic judicial views that means we get what looks on paper like a split decision. That doesn't mean Alito and Thomas were gearing up for a judicial coup.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/azdemparty/status/1337608076178780162

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I always suspected Trump's Presidency would essentially be ended with a 9-0 ruling against him with all his appointees siding with the law over the administration.

[emailking]

Trump thinks it was 7-2.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337743516294934529

retweet:
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/1337555701527416832

[vitoNova]

Here's the Free Republic thread on the matter if anyone wants to feel both schadenfreude and fear of possible upcoming terrorism and violence:

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3914621/posts

Wow.

Literally every third comment is a call to arms.   LOL

But they are like a spider or snake you find in your home:  in that they are more scared of you than you are of it.  

These people literally believe that every registered Democrat wants to outlaw Christianity and send all Xtians to FEMA camps.   Trump is their Great White Hope to prevent this.

And actually, I would 1000% vote for a presidential candidate that wanted to outlaw all religion.   That would be the bee's knees.  (just not the concentration camp thing. that wouldn't be coolio)

[forsythvoter]

I feel like this lawsuit is a good example of why there's a growing college-divide in US politics. Frankly, no one with a even basic understanding of (conservative!) legal doctrine (e.g., federalism, state sovereignty to conduct elections) would ever take what TX's AG is requesting seriously.

Also, this type of stunt really seems like a really odd strategy for a state where the areas that decide the election are in the suburbs (specially outer suburbs) of DFW, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

I get that this type of stunt fires up the Trump base, but TX isn't one of those states where the Trump base as I think of it (WWC, rural supporters) can win elections on its own without at least some support in more moderate corners of the state like the DFW suburbs.