Texas Election lawsuit (...and Growing)

[Phazer]

Yes
6 to 3

Can you find a reference? I'm having difficulty finding info beyond the fact that the court requested responses from the four sued states by Thursday. I haven't seen that this is even docketed.

Never mind...HERE!

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…

therightscoop.com

 

[cgrutt]

Can you find a reference? I'm having difficulty finding info beyond the fact that the court requested responses from the four sued states by Thursday. I haven't seen that this is even docketed.

Says it has been docketed here:

Search

www.supremecourt.gov

 

[GOPerfect]

Can you find a reference? I'm having difficulty finding info beyond the fact that the court requested responses from the four sued states by Thursday. I haven't seen that this is even docketed.

Never mind...HERE!

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…

therightscoop.com

View attachment 98989

Yep.... And I posted yesterday. C'mon man, try to keep up....

I know age is creeping, but again, c'mon

 

[cgrutt]

Trump is being represented by Eastman with motion to Intervene. Good read beginning page 8.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf

 

[Blimey]

Can you find a reference? I'm having difficulty finding info beyond the fact that the court requested responses from the four sued states by Thursday. I haven't seen that this is even docketed.

Never mind...HERE!

BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas election case suing four states

The Supreme Court has officially put the Texas election case suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, filed last night, on the docket: BREAKING – U.S. Supreme Court will hear Texa…

therightscoop.com

View attachment 98989

This does not mean that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.

 

[Mosinitis]

 

[Phazer]

 

[cgrutt]

This does not mean that the SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case.

LOL

 

[Blimey]

LOL

Again: the SCOTUS has not yet agreed to hear this case.

 

[cgrutt]

Again: the SCOTUS has not yet agreed to hear this case.

It's been docketed. Bill of complaint has been accepted. Response by defendants has been ordered to be received by tomorrow 3 pm. Who knows maybe they won't hear it and just rule on merits.

 

[Steal2B]

Again: the SCOTUS has not yet agreed to hear this case.

There is a defined process and the presentation of oral arguements is step 7 with the process running in to step 4 right now. The Justice vote to determine which cases are to be scheduled for oral arguements takes place AFTER the Justices review the briefs. The defendants were ordered by SCOTUS to respond by tomorrow mid afternoon.

 

[Blimey]

It's been docketed. Bill of complaint has been accepted. Response by defendants has been ordered to be received by tomorrow 3 pm. Who knows maybe they won't hear it and just rule on merits.

That seems difficult to believe. That they would accept this and rule without even hearing a defense.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court Has Not Agreed to Hear Texas’ Lawsuit Challenging Swing State Election Results

The statuses of various lawsuits challenging the election results have been a particularly ripe target for such falsehoods, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) long-shot Supreme Court lawsuit is the latest example of that.

www.google.com

 

[cgrutt]

That seems difficult to believe. That they would accept this and rule without even hearing a defense.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court Has Not Agreed to Hear Texas’ Lawsuit Challenging Swing State Election Results

The statuses of various lawsuits challenging the election results have been a particularly ripe target for such falsehoods, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) long-shot Supreme Court lawsuit is the latest example of that.

www.google.com

Yeah, I'm finding many things difficult to believe lately...

Certainly any drivel spewed out by this guy...

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1304474563036798982

">

 

[technicalgadget]

I'm hoping Trump has this ace up his sleeve.

The nuclear option is his ace in the sleeve.

 

[FRB]

You know, I spent 25 years in our great Army. My goal, all of the time was the mission. Completing the mission and obtaining the goals handed down to me was all that mattered.

Granted, we all want to come home to our family's, but that was always secondary.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

 

[byron]

state to state they have to hear. its not acting as an appellate jurisdiction.


Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving Treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).

Cases
When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

 

[Defilade]

That seems difficult to believe. That they would accept this and rule without even hearing a defense.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court Has Not Agreed to Hear Texas’ Lawsuit Challenging Swing State Election Results

The statuses of various lawsuits challenging the election results have been a particularly ripe target for such falsehoods, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) long-shot Supreme Court lawsuit is the latest example of that.

www.google.com

Lmao! Kinda like lower Courts not wanting to hear anything at all!

 

[holdover]

Left is getting angry

 

[masterswimmer]

That seems difficult to believe. That they would accept this and rule without even hearing a defense.

No, the U.S. Supreme Court Has Not Agreed to Hear Texas’ Lawsuit Challenging Swing State Election Results

The statuses of various lawsuits challenging the election results have been a particularly ripe target for such falsehoods, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s (R) long-shot Supreme Court lawsuit is the latest example of that.

www.google.com

Please explain to all of us what the defense to treason is.
In a case of treason all you need to hear is one side, the indisputable evidence of selling out our country. You cannot defend treason.

 

[holdover]

President Trump and 17 Republican-led states gave their support Wednesday to a Supreme Court lawsuit brought by Texas that seeks to overturn Democrat Joseph R. Biden’s wins in four swing states, while the president also urged congressional Republicans to join in the last-ditch complaint against election fraud.


17 states back Texas, ask Supreme Court to hear election challenge - Washington Times

 

[GOPerfect]

FBI CONFIRMS they took 8 Servers from Maricopa County in Election Fraud Investigation...

 

[MothMan]

And of course... Texas.

How many more still to come????

With enough to form the New Middle States of America. From Corpus to Bismarck right across the food basket of the US.

Rejection of these cases by SCOTUS would demonstrate their culpability and most likely lead to secession.

 

[masterswimmer]

FBI CONFIRMS they took 8 Servers from Maricopa County in Election Fraud Investigation...

FBI confirms those 8 waitresses were not important enough to overturn the initial count. Nothing to see here.

Sorry, if the FBI says they're in possession of evidence I have zero faith the evidence is secure. Of course this only applies if the evidence is detrimental to the dums.

 

[GOPerfect]

 

[MothMan]

FBI confirms those 8 waitresses were not important enough to overturn the initial count. Nothing to see here.

Sorry, if the FBI says they're in possession of evidence I have zero faith the evidence is secure. Of course this only applies if the evidence is detrimental to the dums.

Not all servers work in restaurants.

 

[GOPerfect]

I am just trying to keep the masses updated.....

 

[ArmedCorgi]

View attachment 99016

I'm surprised Idaho and Wyoming haven't jumped on board.

 

[cgrutt]

I'm surprised Idaho and Wyoming haven't jumped on board.

Doesn't Ted Turner own Wyoming?

 

[ProgSpear]

Honest question here; if SCOTUS rules for Texas suit, antifa burnlootmurder and related nutcases go crazy in democrat cities, if SCOTUS rules against Texas suit, the real resistance begins everywhere. Which is the worst prospect?

 

[GOPerfect]

Honest question here; if SCOTUS rules for Texas suit, antifa burnlootmurder and related nutcases go crazy in democrat cities, if SCOTUS rules against Texas suit, the real resistance begins everywhere. Which is the worst prospect?

Antigua going crazy would be worse!