Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 5:08 pm
This is potentially very dangerous territory. We have a dispute between 18 states on one side, and a number on the other side (I'm not sure which Dem states are openly supporting the defendant states in this lawsuit) as to who should be the next legitimate President of the United States. I sure hope that SCOTUS decides to take this case, because leaving an open dispute on something of this magnitude would be about as close as we've come to Civil war since the last one we had back in the 1860's.
Two very important points to consider and keep in mind, especially when talking about this case. The first is that no one is asking the SCOTUS to decide who is the next president. Nothing in this court case will decide that. What is being asked and the court will decide is if people other than the legislature itself may make decisions that affect the electors appointed. If the court agrees with the premise, all that will happen is the four state legislatures will have to vote on who gets appointed as electors. They may appoint the same people that are currently appointed. They may appoint a new slate dedicated to President Trump. They may pick 62 people with NO preconceived dedication to vote. If they are one of the states where the electors are bound by law to vote for whoever won the popular vote in that state, I have no idea what will happen and the exact wording of the court decision may be critical. But SCOTUS will not determine who won the election.
Second is the question of whether SCOTUS can even refuse the case. This is a very unusual case where SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction. While acting as an appeals court, SCOTUS may decline to hear a case. But I am not sure they have that authority when acting as the original court. One of the overriding principles of our government is that everyone has the right to a fair trial in court (as the saying goes, even a dog can get his day in court). If they are the original jurisdiction and have the authority to turn down a case, how do the parties in the case get their day in court? There is no further appeals court they can turn to and ask for it there. There is a strong argument (IMO) based on this logic, that SCOTUS has no choice but to hear this case.
I understand that SCOTUS is not being asked to directly decide who should be the next President of the United States. I didn't mean to imply that Texas was asking them to do that. I simply meant that this is an extremely significant dispute between the states because we have just over 1/3 of the states challenging the legitimacy of the process that will likely lead to Biden receiving over 270 electoral votes and becoming the next U.S. President. If Texas is saying that process was improper, I think it is an easy extension for Texas and the other states to conclude that Biden is an illegitimate President if he is actually sworn in.
My point was that it would be very, very, good for SCOTUS to weigh in on this and add another measure of legitimacy to the outcome instead of just leaving this as an open dispute between the states. It sounds like that might be a moot concern if SCOTUS is not allowed to refuse to hear the case.
If biden becomes president it maybe time for Texas Secede!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
Personally I've resigned myself to having a President Biden for the next 6 months until he can gracefully resign for "personal / health reasons". So the real question is what checks we will have to keep Kamala from destroying our rights.
The media and career employees at Federal agencies will be no help, of course. But that still leaves us with Congress, state governments, and SCOTUS. SCOTUS may only be a check if Republicans hold the senate, as Kamala will be fully willing to appoint whatever number of justices is needed to make SCOTUS a rubber stamp for her agenda. But there is also the possibility that at least one moderate Dem senator will also block such a naked power grab even if we lose both Georgia run-offs.
And of course, the more extreme she tries to be, the more she is guaranteeing that the House and Senate will be firmly in Republican hands in 2022, and that President Trump is back in the White House in 2024.
“Texas files reply brief in election suit at SCOTUS, final step before justices issue order in blockbuster case.
Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief," the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.
Texas continues: "An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions."”
philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:10 am
Time is running out.
Electors vote on Monday.
That does not matter at all. The real deadline is when Congress meets in a joint session to count the votes and declare the victor. That doesn't happen until January 6th.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:10 am
Time is running out.
Electors vote on Monday.
That does not matter at all. The real deadline is when Congress meets in a joint session to count the votes and declare the victor. That doesn't happen until January 6th.
You are correct that the counting does not happen until January 6th. However Philip964 is also correct that the REAL election day this year is Monday, December 14th.
philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:10 am
Time is running out.
Electors vote on Monday.
That does not matter at all. The real deadline is when Congress meets in a joint session to count the votes and declare the victor. That doesn't happen until January 6th.
You are correct that the counting does not happen until January 6th. However Philip964 is also correct that the REAL election day this year is Monday, December 14th.
That is true, but you're making an argument that philip didn't. His argument was that time is running out because (implied) the electors submit their votes on Monday.
Within the context of his argument, I simply pointed out that time doesn't run out on Monday.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
