Supreme Court rejects Texas' effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden
Sanity.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Dec. 11, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC By Pete Williams
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday said it would not consider a lawsuit filed by Texas that sought to overturn Joe Biden's election victory in four battleground states.
The court ruled that Texas had no legal right to challenge how other states conduct their elections, and thus lacked standing to file the suit.
While the suit attracted President Trump's support and was endorsed by many Republicans in Congress, it suffered from several legal and factual shortcomings.
President Donald Trump called the case "the big one," and 126 of the 196 Republicans in the U.S. House urged the court to take it.
Supporters of the Trump campaign saw the Texas suit as their best hope for derailing a victory for Joe Biden before the actual presidential vote is cast by the Electoral College on Monday.
Never before had any state asked the court to do what Texas proposed, to nullify election results from other states. The lawsuit sought to delay the vote of presidential electors in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, arguing that voting procedures in those states violated their own state laws.
The five big problems with Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win
Dec. 10, 202003:06
Allowing them to cast their electoral votes, Texas said, would "cement a potentially illegitimate election result."
Both conservative and liberal legal experts alike said the lawsuit had a fatal flaw, because Texas had no authority to claim that it was injured or that its own voters were affected in any way by election procedures in another state.
Pennsylvania made that point in urging the court to dismiss the case.
"Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas's view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections," Pennsylvania said.
The other battleground states said allowing the lawsuit to proceed would invite lawsuits over virtually any future federal election.
"Texas proposes an extraordinary intrusion into Wisconsin's and the other defendant states' elections, a task that the Constitution leaves to each state," the state said in its response to the suit. "Wisconsin has conducted its election and its voters have chosen a winning candidate for their state. Texas's bid to nullify that choice is devoid of a legal foundation or a factual basis."
The lawsuit was filed Monday by Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general. Among its claims was that the chances of a Biden victory were "less than one in a quadrillion." That statement was widely ridiculed, because it was based on a statistician's assumption that voters showed exactly the same party preferences as they did in 2016.
"Wow!" wrote David Post of the libertarian Cato Institute on a conservative legal blog. "If mail-in voters had the same preferences as in-person voters, Trump must have won!! And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a motorcar!!"
The four battleground states, joined by friend-of-court briefs from Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, said Texas also waited too long to bring its claim to court.
Many of the new voting procedures, such as a move by the Pennsylvania legislature to allow no-excuse voting by mail, were adopted months ago. They were also unsuccessfully challenged in the courts of the four states, another point against the Texas suit.
The Texas lawsuit attracted support from attorneys general of 16 other red states. One notable exception was Ohio's Republican attorney general, Dave Yost. He said that federal courts "lack authority to change the legislatively chosen method for appointing presidential electors."
Mark Gordon, the Republican governor of Wyoming, where Trump won 70 percent of the vote, said he and his attorney general declined to sign on to the red state brief.
"We believe that the case could have unintended consequences relating to a constitutional principle that the state of Wyoming holds dear, that states are sovereign, free to govern themselves," he said.
Trump and Republicans in seven states have so far filed nearly 60 lawsuits to challenge election procedures, but not a single outcome was changed.
John Foriter, an election law expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, said once the electors cast their votes Monday, lawsuits face even greater odds against undoing a Biden victory.
"I think the answer is that the court challenges are pretty well done."
Pete Williams
Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
So now what is next on the nutcase agenda?
Continued denial maybe? More whining? Probably more Trump ass kissing. All of the above!
Probably ' stand by and double down on ' the claim the election was stolen. Maybe claim now that the SCotUS is a co-conspirator? Wear the SCotUS rejection as a ' badge of honor '?
Trying to think like those minds is probably not healthy.
Definitely not. Stupidity like that is like a disease: it spreads quickly, infects the mind, makes one completely irrational, and is difficult to treat.
How about this?
---
TPM: ‘New’ Nevada And ‘New’ California Ask Old Supreme Court To Overturn Election
U.S. President Donald Trump on the south lawn of the White House on November 29, 2020
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The “states” of New California and New Nevada filed an amicus brief in support of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to have the Supreme Court block states that voted for Joe Biden from casting their electoral votes for the president-elect.
The case has pitted Texas and 18 other red states against states that went for Joe Biden, with the ultimate goal of getting the Supreme Court to invalidate Biden’s win.
Paxton’s claims have been described as being divorced from reality and legal precedent, but the addition of two “states” from a polity that has yet to come into being could challenge Paxton to take his claims a step further: if Texas can outweigh Pennsylvania, can New Nevada and New California outweigh their precursors?
It also could offer Paxton a tantalizing opportunity for appeal should he lose the case. A New Supreme Court of the United States could be in the offing, or a New Texas that would replace that of old.
For now, New Nevada and New California are represented by Pahrump, Nevada attorney Robert E. Thomas, III.
From his erstwhile capital of Pahrump, Thomas has been nurturing the fledging state of New Nevada since the 2018 midterms.
According to Thomas’s website for the “New Nevada” State Movement, he began to assemble insurrectionists after being angry about GOP losses in the 2018 midterms.
The movement’s slogan is “What Would You Change, If You Could Do It Over Again?,” a reference to the state slogan as well as being a potential descriptor for the kinds of thoughts in which introspection among the plaintiffs could result.
Armed with that slogan and his website, Thomas has been fighting for nearly two years to divorce Nevada’s rural counties from Las Vegas, leaving the gambling mecca (home to a Trump hotel and top GOP fundraiser Steve Wynn) to wither on the vine as the state’s bucolic heartland presumably unites under the banner of New Nevada.
Thomas channels the Founding Fathers, citing a number of “grievances” that have led him down the path not of secession, but apparently of replacement.
They include impingement on Second Amendment rights, rule by a “rebellious” state government, and “irrational taxation.”
Now, in the Supreme Court brief, Thomas has added New California to his coalition of fake states. He cited the conduct and outcome of the 2020 elections as another grievance spurring his revolution of state replacement.
“An opinion by this Court affirming a national, uniform rule of law reestablishing the supremacy of The Electors Clause of Article II, § 1 of the United States Constitution will resolve some of the complaints causing the establishment of these new States,” the filing reads.
Thomas added that “lawless actions of Governors Newsome California and Sisolak (Nevada) (sic)” had contributed to their own formation.
According to the website and to Thomas’ past public statements, his movements’ particular beef seems to be based on the idea that rural Nevadans should have greater voting power than that of Las Vegas.
“Clark County has a larger population than all the rural counties of Nevada combined,” Thomas wrote. “Thus, what Clark County desires, Rural Nevada must accept, like it or not.”
In the Paxton lawsuit, he apparently saw an opportunity to allay the following harm: “New California State and New Nevada State are suffering under many governmental usurpations, this usurpation by the Executive Branch being one of many.”
The Pahrump Valley Times reported in January 2019 that Thomas was particularly enraged by the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court decision, which held that districts in state legislatures should have roughly equal population.
“This decision created what our Founding Fathers feared; a tyranny of the majority (‘mob rule’),” Thomas told the paper. “Now, large population centers out-vote all the rest of rural Nevada with distressing regularity. That injustice can be corrected by the formation of a New Nevada State.”
As of this writing, the borders of the newly declared states were unclear. Whether they are simply “New California” and “New Nevada” or are “New California State” and “New Nevada State” also remains unclear.
It’s unclear when Thomas began to speak for New California as well as New Nevada.
There's one NTer who is surely pleased...
Well I asked about what the nutcases might do and you have delivered a fine answer.
I read their motion and just shook my head at the "new" part in their motion.
Daniel Dale was going through it this morning on CNN, it was truly laughable.
"TPM: ‘New’ Nevada And ‘New’ California Ask Old Supreme Court To Overturn Election"
How desperate.
Judge Judy...
I'd kinda like to see the eye roll she'd give them.
I really wanted to see her be the moderator during the debates. She would have had control of that circus.
I know of a better moderator...
Can't argue with that, lol.
Seriously, if I was elected president, He would be my first choice as press secretary...
"I don't remember asking you a god damn thing!!!"
Priceless.
It would appear that Trump and his allies miscalculated their Republican appointed judges in thinking that they would stand behind Trump under any and all circumstances. I guess Trump will be aiming for payback at those who refused to vote in his favor and help him throw the election. Especially, the newest one who was just recently sworn in.
Looks like not all his protogeys are willing to lie for Trump as he thought they would be.
Poor baby....he worked sooo hard to get his coup to the SCOTUS as he was certain they would act in his favor.
Tsk Tsk...."'Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive."
Those Republicans who have pledged their undying loyalty to Trump not matter what will rue the day they made that choice. Their seat is not permanent, nor can their God Trump do that for them. There are real Republicans out there who will not sell their soul to the Devil just to hold on their political seat.
Well said. We need a comeuppance on this. How the "H" did the republicans/conservatives win more seats talking like unreasonable fools?!
It really is good that we are not as far down the rabbit hole (yet?) as Turkey.
Turkey was an absolute monarchy only a century ago. The Turks had never known any democratic or human rights traditions until Mustafa Kemal imposed them.
America has democratic and human rights traditions going back almost a thousand years.
Erdoğan's anti--democratic success is sad but not surprising.
Trump's near-success......
That sums up the whole thing..LOL
Pahrump is famous for two things, meth and whore houses.
Three stars in the Michelin.
well, we can forget about fair elections in the future and can expect much division.
do we call everyone comrade now?
viva la resistance
Almost. Seems Trump (and supporting sycophants) have lowered the bar to a ridiculous level of stubborn refusal to accept reality. One can only hope this will be an historical anomaly.
that's one way to look at it... another way is this country will be more divided now than ever before. I'm talking off the charts, irreparable division. regardless of what side of the fence anyone is on, when half the country "knows" the election was rigged and the other half "knows" the election was legit? then the supreme court refuses to sort things out? that's totally game over, there is nothing but down hilll from there. it took venezuela 20yrs to go to shit, I'm betting joe and kamala can beat that record.
personally, I do not intend to be very good communist and probably will have to be re-educated a dozen times or more... so no matter what, it's still gonna be good fun for everyone
how long until it is time to start talking about a national divorce? LOL just kidding. but seriously, since I'm new to this communism stuff help me out... when does kamala take over? first or second term?
cheers comrade
Judging from the quality of your arguments as a citizen of our republic, I doubt that anyone expects you to be better at communism.
Bullshit walks. I'd suggest you all kick those damn money-grubbing 'whoring prostitutes' on Fox News out of your politics. Rightwing talk has clearly lost its damn way and minds. Donald Trump has been winging his way through this presidency ignoring reality and creating this BS "privilege" society for a community of wanna-be autocrats. I am not only disgusted with Trump supporters, I truly hope true republicans/conservatives come back and throw all Trump supporters out on their "tin" ears. Y'all are done as for as I am concerned.
The rise of the Nazi Regime in Germany was a 'historical anomaly'.
On the contrary. Every democracy, since Athens, has fallen in the same way that the Weimar Republic died: a legitimately elected government went beyond its remit, and refused to leave at the end of its mandate.
Trump's "slow motion coup d'état" is standard procedure for overthrowing a democracy. It has apparently failed this time, but the Republicans will try again, at every election.
They only need to succeed once.
So should we bow down and validate dumb shits and nit wits simply because there were many of them? Should rational Americans cower to the vile treasonous bigots who wrongly imagine "their" country is somehow being stolen from them even though they have ZERO evidence of any such thing? Do we validate the stupid, double down on ignorance and celebrate pond scum simply because they have worked themselves into a frothy rabid frenzy? Of course not, those folk can go take a long walk off a short pier, they're losers and that's all they will ever be.
Wrong. A majority "know" the election was legit, a minority of whiny childish sore loser scum bags imagine it wasn't with ZERO evidence.
Sort what out? Trump LOST! End of story. The losers can get the fuck over it or get the fuck out.
And that's a bet you'll lose because it's not even a remote possibility. Only a half witted mule with chronic traumatic encephalopathy would imagine such total hilariously flawed bullshit.
Good, because no one is asking you to, but perhaps some empathetic therapist will listen to your delusions if you ask them to.
There are many who need far more education to grasp reality due to all the bullshit that's been dumped on the poorly educated gullible pawns of this dumb shit fraud currently in the white house.
Unless you're set on leaving the country and living in some communist country I don't think you'll get much help. We are not and NEVER will be a communist nation unless some dip shits who love Putin more than the US constitution try to undermine our constitutional Republic.
That's never going to happen unless some vile disgusting fucking worthless Trump worshiping dip shit tries to assassinate Biden.
Only Trump was seeking the unwavering devotion from small minded bigoted fascists so no need to 'cheers' any half witted 'comrades' here.
Don't fret Eight Ball, a person can even live in a Communist country and still not be a Communist. Nobody is forcing me, or reeducating me, to be a Communist although I've been living in China for more than 14 years. I'm still a Canadian citizen, still vote to support the Canadian and Ontario Conservative Parties, and the ignorant exaggeration that Biden and Harris will change the USA from a democratic republic to a Communist nation is just SO ridiculous it could be the joke of the month. You MEANT it to be a joke, didn't you?
They did succeed once. Trump failed at his "bigly" chance to be president. Donald is a Trumphole, and the people saw for themselves how absurd, dangerous, and deeply flawed this one man and his host are! President Elect Biden will have four years to think deeply how to leave an unforgettable, uncompromising, legacy that will withstand the assault from a former clown president.
Donalld Trump is a disaster, now comes the time to prove it for all to see. Forget Donald. Put that fool in the Biden rear-view mirror and never look back!
Also, 'Eight Ball saw crystal clearly a Trump 2020 win for sho'! Didn't happen. If so, where is the evidence?
Texas GOP chair floats secession for 'law-abiding states' after Supreme Court defeat
The old adage of ''stupid is as stupid says'' seems to be catching on in Texas.
You have to quit listening to the voices in your head.
Nearly half of American voters wanted him re-elected.
They are much more problematic than he.
I'm beginning to think that separation of red and blue might be a good thing.
"You MEANT it to be a joke, didn't you?"
Sadly no. He's never joking. He was also so sure that tRumpturd would win in a landslide.
"I heard it started in Florida."
I heard it started in Virginia Beach.
Without the "F" (fag) word, let me just say that skit is 'hot' × dos. In a nicer way it reminds me of Pulp Fiction when Travolta and Jackson are not shooting homosexuals!
I agree. At times some conservatives/republicans are interchangeable with Donald's states of mind. And then, Donald shows up to eat his own at various intervals. Effectively, keeping himself at the head of the table!
Muva, really it is time to head back into the center of our shared political universe. Outliers and uncooperative people are 'gone' too far; this part is starting to hurt the whole. I am not sure that any of this pushing outward is helping any group or the body politics. Seriously, what do you think?
What do you get when red and blue merge? MAGENTA.
People, my people, it is time to bring back and even pray for "Magenta" to return to our politics. We are cords thicker when we work together and let go of our "babble- tower confusion."
Pray for the political peace of the United States.
Aye
true... luckily, I know how to sort out the sjw's and make them come to me so we can have a little "chat. am looking forward to finding many new communist "friends"
I just ordered 20 maga hats for bait.
... made in China, of course...
I concur. Some of them Red States are to costly to maintain.
Seems the only book ever photographed on Trump's nightstand was Meine Kampf by Adolph Hitler.
Really?
Well, why don't you just come on down here to Arkansas and we'll have one
count your sheets first ...
I don't have any white ones...
your arkansas neighbors already broke in, huh? haven't seen any late night bonfires in the middle of nowhere lately, have you?
It would appear that as with previous attempts to turn our government to Fascism, the attempts of Trump and his mentally-challenged ass-kissers will soon become part of history.
Americans hold a Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden (1939)
Throughout our history, groups of extremists have attempted to change our government to a Fascist Government-- all those attempts have failed, so my guess is the attempts of our "Loser-in-Chief" and his sleazy followers will be total failures as well.
Trump's own appointee Chris Krebs said it was the most secure election in history....which had trump won, he would have completely accepted as fact.
Some Trump supporters don't want to be persuaded, truthful, or factual. They simply want to win (at any cost). There message for the rest of us: We will take all that we can from you through hook or crook.
Oh, it's true. It's true. The table has been set: And the game is afoot.
Can't admit you were wrong, once again, about Texas?
About tRumpturd winning by a landslide?
LOL!
There's a saying that "Everything's Bigger in Texas".
(Looks like that applies to political bullshit as well!!!)
Despite the hysterical fear mongering about "Trump Judges" overturning the election the left used to try and gin up opposition to Coney-Barrett, that the conservative justices would faithfully apply the law was never in doubt.
What will be interesting is watching all those people who are so up in arms about the " death of democracy" and overturning elections will sit by and cheer Nancy Pelosi as she overturns the certified winner of a House seat and installs the losing Democrat.
Lets see. I know I am against foul play regardless of who executes it.
I am against any changes designed to yield fake votes for a candidate, hide legitimate votes or dissuade voters from voting.
My statement was general purpose, MUVA; if it is foul play, I am against it.
That isn't the issue MUVA. At least 30 states changed the rules for mail in ballots this year, INCLUDING Texas. IF merely changing the rules was actionable, Paxton should have included his own Governor and SoS in his filing.
13 states that voted for Trump changed their mail in ballot rules for 2020. I know why NONE of them are included in Paxton's filing.
It drips with hypocrisy.
And indulgence. Don't leave the indulgence pattern out. Trump supporters want to make it plain that they want 'group privilege' to be the law of the land. The axiom, "might makes right" is in play here. Now, Donald is pushing for a(n) ultimate power-play from his supporters. And when Donald pulls out the 'stopper' on it, tries to overthrow our government, my prayer is it lands this Trumphole in prison for life without possibility of parole.
Indulgence [in the Catholic cense] is what Trump's sycophants want in order to minimize their responsibility for what they have had a hand in for the last 5 years.
Yes, Trump republicans/conservatives are guilty of a great many wrongs. And yet, Trump doesn't know the word, "repentance." Or the more universal way of apology. He curses everybody who is against him!
Well gee MUVA, since every one of Trump's cases FAILED, every state changed their rules legally. How the changes were made is irrelevant. Pretending that a vote on a specific change is the only legal way to change election rules ignores the facts.
Oh and BTFW, Trump had plenty of time to challenge those changes BEFORE the election. It wasn't until he LOST in certain states that he suddenly had an issue.
That's not true at all.
Prove it Sean.
No more innuendo, supposition, machinations. PROOF!
It's your allegation. You prove it.
But you know you can't.
I agree. In general I am amazed at how many people have bought into this conspiracy crap initiated by Trump. Trump was claiming the 2016 election was rigged too ... until he won:
US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has said the election is "absolutely rigged" by the "dishonest media" and "at many polling places".
WTH people, how obvious can this be? With all the claims founded on non-evidence, all the legal challenges that have failed, one must wonder how any rational mind can think that Trump won this election.
You can take for granted the rules were changed legally, or there would be EVIDENT of illegality. As for your qualifier (by a vote in all those states). . . that depends on the guidelines, rules, and policies of individual states.
All and all, Donald has no case for being in courts. There is no EVIDENCE of fraud.
But you're welcome to keep looking for someone or some lack to blame for Donald's utter rejection at the hand of citizens who voted (in accordance with guidelines, rules, and policies of individual states).
Are you seriously still laboring under the delusion that Trump's court cases have been successful Sean? Perhaps if you reviewed the results of the litigation for yourself, that issue can be dispensed with:
As of a few days ago, Trump has lost 59 court cases. I think there might have been a couple of more since then but who's counting.
The last filing is in NM with its 5 electoral votes, and the real bigly one.
iously still laboring under the delusion that Trump's court cases have been successful Sean? Pe
Not at all.
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that since his cases failed the Courts ruled that every state changed it's rules legally.
They did not
It looks like what they are saying is, "Time to come home."
They accept the delusion, because they accept privilege is theirs to use as they see fit. We all know the type.
Such individuals as Donald see power as a thing to be manipulated and turned to private advantage. Trump has simply aggregated these folks into a mass for us to look upon all at once.
Donald Trump ran his administration like a private business affair. He-casted in the role of Chairman and CEO, his officials-listed as guest stars, and the citizenry durable employees and underlings.
Of course it is. tRumpturd and his supporters just can't handle it.
He was convinced he would win in a landslide
Now that's an allegation that you have to prove.
If what he says is true-- there should be no problem in him producing numerous links (from reliable sources).
But even one would do...
What is worse for the gop than being known as "The Stupid Party"? Being known as "The Silly Party". That is what this last stunt was, plain old silly. Stupid Silly!
Shows how the GOP has emerged pre-post Trump, emboldened by BS, starving for more LIES, where and when cause for our country, what is Right, as they show there is more no sightings than a Loch Ness, as the Monster they've created and not hated, while they attempt to hold on tight, now reigns on/over their parade, a parade, filled with Hot air that Floats the LIES, as America DIES, and , with any luck, the Party IS OVER. Well at lest Trump will have a Spork stuck in him and the fake cake he wishes to have and eat, as well, will be displayed with his next tweet.What the Hell were those Republican "Americans" thinkin, as they tried to undermine our own election process,, and exposed for All to see, the pinnacle of Hypocrisy , is they attempt to ironically steel, what Russia had already stolen, for and from, them
There a few things the believers in democracy have overlooked.
1. The Court of The Supreme Beings is not the last and ultimate stop.
2. For convenience and fund raising the US elections of 2020 will never be over until the 'Trumpian' digression is satiated.
3. There are a few bestowed with the wisdom from the powers of the most high that indicate that those powers of the most high are greatly saddened that the 'one with the biggest brain' was not chosen to lead for the eternity he required.
In other words did democracy fail or succeed?
An aside. What would it be like to be invisible and have full access to every nook and cranny of The White House and Mar a Lago for the next forty days? Including the gold plated toilets.
SHITTY ...?
Um, no. I'll pass on that, ugh !
Really? Dare you imagine the language, threats, accusations and fear being waged in the waning days of Trump's time?
In time we will find out, even the cooks have seen and heard things. A lot of books are on the way.
But for me, I'd simply love to be a witness to it all. Wouldn't you?
Would be a good thing to record for posterity.
That book would be a bestseller along with Melania's tell all.
Except Melania has nothing to say. All she cares about is her looks in designer dresses. She IS a shallow person.
How is this SCOTUS decision even possible?
I have it on very good liberal authority that SCOTUS is rigged in Trump's favor, and would rule according to his wishes.
Liberals, you have some 'splaining to do!
The case was so bereft of any facts, that even Trump's Supremes couldn't find a justification to do what he wanted. Not a crumb to be found.
[deleted]
Why no mark, for a question you decided to answer for your self. Why not explain what you exclaim , as it is only your pointless point , Know ? Nobody does, think So ?
[deleted]
Exactly. I read the brief and it was so ridiculous that even though I know next to nothing about being a lawyer, I knew there was no way the SCOTUS would side with Trump.. Sadly, 3 justices did..
[deleted]
IDKWTFYAGOAN.
Wrong on so many levels...
I read it to mean that Alito and Thomas would have heard the case, but agreed that they would have sided against Texas. So, we'd have the same result; it just would have taken a bit longer had those two had their way. And it might have been slightly less embarrassing for those states' attorneys general, considering they would have actually had a day in court, which they have now been denied.
Ah ok, I missed that piece, thanks for the clarification.
Where is the, "wrong" part?
Which 3? That blew my dream about the legal intelligence and lack of political bias of some of the SCOTUS judges. I had hoped that they would all have put the law ahead of politics, a unanimous decision - at least I can have some respect for SOME of your SCOTUS judges. If it's correct that the A.G.s didn't get their day in court, I guess they couldn't be laughed out of court, which they would have deserved.
Which 3?
This is like a case study in watching gaslighting take hold. A falsehood gets told, and the echo chamber just repeats it....
Sean, you keep calling "gaslighting", but I notice you've yet to support your assertion. Why is that?
W hy is that?
I give too much credit to some readers I guess. Sort of like I how don't need to support the assertion that two plus two equals four.
The opinion is a handful of sentences. Do I need to explain each one? Here it is:
Mr. Frost blatantly misrepresented the contents of the opinion. Nothing is more obvious. Seven members of the progressive echo chamber have now given those falsehoods a thumbs up and hours later, a member of that echo chamber amplified those untruths in another post.
Three months from now, other members of the echo chamber will claim three justices "sided with Trump" in his election suit.
This sort of thing has played out time and time again. There are people on this site who still claim the Russian dossier was verified
Odd. I specifically recall correcting that, and Mr.Frost thanking me for the correction. I really don't see how that equates to an "echo chamber", or indicates that the incorrect conclusion will continue to be spread. I would say that it takes an extremely prejudiced and willfully obtuse interpretation of the above discussion in order to come to that conclusion.
But some folks seem ok with that, so long as they're tossing insults and unfounded accusations against those with whom they disagree.
You think that matters? Hours after you posted your correction, the falsehood of the original premise was repeated by another poster.
r indicates that the incorrect conclusion will continue to be spread.
So you aren't familiar with this board, are you?
Seriously, you can correct a false progressive talking point dozens of times and it will rise from the dead like a zombie a week later.
You still haven't shown me an echo chamber, Sean. The fact that Frost and I were engaged in a civil, even cordial, discussion in which one of us offered a correction and the other accepted it pretty much proves that part of your accusation to be false. But you know that, and so does everyone reading this discussion.
As far as one member asking "which 3?", he may well have read Frost's comment, but not my reply to it, before responding typing his own response. It would have been quite easy to do, as my reply was several comments downthread.
I'm sure you make similar comments to those insisting that Trump won the election, yes?
I've demonstrated that the post was a massive misrepresentation of the truth, as egregious as claiming Trump won popular vote in California. Despite, or maybe because it was such an obvious partisan falsehood, 7 members gave that misrepresentation a thumbs up. So yes, seven people who show support for obviously false, partisan statements constitutes an echo chamber I can lead a horse to water...
But it didn't stop there.
I, told the author he was wrong, to put it charitably. You claim to have "corrected him" You claim the author "accepted" your correction yet the Frost debunks that statement. He immediately asked "where is the wrong part?" after supposedly acknowledging your correction. Your correction was ignored.
And then five hours later, a member of the echo chamber repeats the falsehood in another post and receives another thumbs up. And so it goes on....
No, you've declared it to be so. Not the same as demonstrating.
And still no echo chamber. At this point, I can only assume that you are trolling. Par for the course, I suppose.
It could be that lawyers are more interested in the makup of judicial decisions than those not so familiar with the legal process.
And there are members here who still claim that Biden "stole" the election.
It's a handful of sentences in simple English. If you can't figure out the distinction what the decision actually says, and what Frost claims it did, I really can't help you.
But what's really funny is you claim to have corrected Frost, which would be unnessary if the post was accurate. Yet now you resort to defending the accuracy of his post when it was pointed out that 7 members, doing what members of an echo chamber do, gave a thumbs up to an obviously inaccurate post. It's almost like you are trying to prove me correct.
assume that you are trolling. Par for the course, I suppose.
Good example of those little insults moderators get to make, but are COC violations for those of us not in the echo chamber.
That's called a deflection.
While you still haven't managed to articulate what was so wrong about it, and on so many levels.
You know that one can vote up a post without agreeing to every word within it, yes? I can point to at least one instance in which another person I'm betting you'd say is part of the nonexistent "echo chamber" and I were on opposite sides of an issue (no echo chamber), and that member voted up my post, even though I know he disagreed with me. It's called finding common ground and being civil. Something mature, rational people do fairly frequently.
It's pointing out a double standard.
Okay: 'Pulling a Seinfeld' set of comments about nothing. Nice—not!
I agree with you about voting people up. One doesn't have to agree with everything posted.
I am bad about remembering to vote posts I like. I have been trying to remind myself and have been better lately. I voted up Taco the other day.
A deflection? You mean like blaming others for one's own negligent wrongdoings? Who do you think is the master of that little game?
"It's pointing out a double standard."
That appears to be the only standard some have.
So, instead of correcting the initial post, you strung members along for several posts before you told them what the so many levels were... And really, you then only alluded to the one inaccuracy.
Isn't that trolling?
Actually, the ONE 'authority' that has stated unequivocally, multiple times, that ACB was needed on the Court so it would be ensured that the SCOTUS would rule in Trump's favor and that was Trump.
i know what I have read here on these forums.
I stand by what I wrote--as it is the truth.
No matter what you may think.
My post isn't an opinion Tex, it's a fact, as you well know.
I didn't say one word about your opinion.
I know what I have read from posters here--all about how SCOTUS was basically rigged by Trump.
It was all lies.
Deal with it or not.
Oh, BTFW, I choose to recognize fucking reality.
Wait what?
That was you right Tex? What I 'may think' is my OPINION, isn't it Tex?
Perhaps part of that was based on his ad nauseam statements that THAT is what he was doing.
Oh no worries Tex. Trump's Justices have DECADES to do him proud.
As I intend to live a couple more of those decades, I have no fucking choice.
Ya could have fooled me.
No thanks, I am all caught up.
Very good--you managed to quote me AND doubt yourself at the same time.
Of course I wrote it. SMMFH.
You may THINK that I haven't seen what I have seen posted here. I don't consider that your opinion, just a misguided delusional belief.
That's fucking funny!
Oh, I have no need to worry about it. After all, I never have once bitched and moaned about who Trump nominated for SCOTUS--unlike many here.
There are always choices. Sometimes we don't like the consequences of those choices. Too bad, huh?
Is that so? I'll try to remember that in case I ever attempt it.
I don't doubt myself Tex, I doubt your ability to understand a simple premise or to answer a simple question.
That's a lot or babbling to avoid answering a simple question Tex.
I didn't say anything about what you have seen here. Just STOP.
Do you ever intend to adult and make a cogent comment?
A cogent comment that will take months to explain to you?
No thanks.
I will gladly let you live in the world you have created for yourself.
Delusional superciliousness.
Hmmm.
Let's look at a little history, shall we?
1884----GOP (the Republican Party) began appearing in print. Lincoln long dead by that time
1984---GOP (the Republican Party)
2020---GOP (STILL the Republican Party)
Learn anything yet?
If you have time, I can introduce you to truth.
might even be enlightening!
"If you have time, I can introduce you to truth."
If you ever change your mind and become interested in the truth, just holler!
"If you ever change your mind and become interested in the truth, just holler!"
Of course, you are completely free to live in a truth-less void, if that is what you choose!
Enjoy!
You're the one who lives in a truthless void.
You've never uttered anything resembling truth in the past, so I won't waste my time in the future.
You're good only for comic relief.
And such a WLB! you are!
He was so hoping that the phonier than thou ACB would rule in his favor. LOL!
yeah, and weren't you one of those who repeatedly told everyone that ACB was just going to vote whichever way Trump wanted on everything? Didn't you make it a point to talk about how unqualified she was, and all the terrible decisions SCOTUS would make because of Trump nominees?
Don't you remember crowing all of that nonsense?
i remember your posts about it!
LMAO!!
Let's put this to some stage of 'arrest.' For a proper judgement we thank the SCOTUS and its set of jurists. We can all be grateful when law follows its own course and is not pulled to the extremes by unreasonable expectations of politicians on either or both sides. So we thank our justices for being accountable to "umpire" righteously. And we can only ask that this be the case going forward under any administration. We're tired of all this back-biting that is intent on truth decay.
So far, our justices have acted in a bloc to push-back against 'junk' law polluting their calendars and dockets. We can all be grateful for that, for to countenance junk law is to push aside and put in suspension more urgent and thus more important cases needing judicial consideration.
When people stop lying about SCOTUS, I will stop pointing the lies out.
Thanks for your input.
But I ain't about to buy your phony "let's all get along" crap.
And yet you 'buy the phony' Donald puts down hook, line, and sinker. So much so that you can barely not defend his insanities. I have more news for you: Donald just got 'thrown' out of a federal court again today.
Come on, stay associated with Donald, because a Trump federally appointed judge just told his 'argument' and I paraphrase: 'Eat shit and bark at the moon!'
Officially the case is dismissed with prejudice. Translation: Don't bring this 'disaster' back to my court.
Texan, you don't have to buy compassion; we can try getting along for free.
Nope, just something you deliberately invented.
After what you have posted to me, that will be a hard pass.
With "friends" like you, I don't need any enemies!
Aww. Isn't it time to 'straighten up and fly right'? Let's let the love of God prevail in us starting now. Why wait, shake, shake, shake Donald out early. (Smile.)
Stow it.
I don't like fake.
Even "righteous" fakery!
Well, hand is extended. Take it or not take it. I will survive accordingly in the long run: I have no choice. Just how many "hoaxes" can Donald deliver to a federal court anymore? Courts are getting fatigue-d.
No thanks. I have grown far too accustomed to having and using both my hands.
There is always a choice. Sometimes people just can't stand the consequences of that choice.
Well just have your way be indulgent. Don't let compassion break out; keep it bridled and for the select few. How one can have compassion on a conscience-less freak like Donald is beyond me, but you are free to use your privilege legally any way you choose. Moving on.
Preach!
LMAO!
HAH!
Fat chance!
What are you going on about now? Surely, you don't expect me to give away my hard won freedom of speech! You among many should respect freedom as an individual right!
And when can we expect this miracle to occur?
Is that flotsam or jetsam?
It's about me having and using the same freedom you have to 'linger.' How about that?
"Moving on"
LMAO!
I'm not flattered that you know every word I write/posted. Not at all. Not interested.
Oh, I never claimed to know what every word you post is. Mainly because I am not all that interested in them.
But I do remember that particular exchange and how sure you were about her and her rulings!
Cheers!
Again, not flattered.
How pitiful can one be? Responding to posts from three days ago, to try to get the last word in?
How pathetic!
Donald Trump, President of the United State of Denial, conferences with a group of yet More, Illegal Aliens that his galactic image is as it appears on and by
ET :
Entertaintmeant Tonight , for Extra Terrestrials, with extra Testicles for Trump to Putin asz he's T bagged yet again, and again.
And his name is Eddie Torres...the extra testicle.
Trump still has Judge Judy, The People’s Court, Night Court and the Mall Food Court to plead his case to...
Mm hmm. I believe I called that. (Not that I'm the only one. It's just nice to say "I told you so" sometimes.)
You did indeed state the obvious.
Donald's moving on, soon.
So all the conservatives appointed to the courts by Trump actually followed the law, and now Republicans and conservatives don't like it? Ha, ha, ha! Law and order? They propose lawlessness and disorder when they don't get their own way. Even though Republicans said we could fix it at the ballot box if we don't like Trump, we fixed it and the majority of Americans voted under a pandemic making their voices heard at the ballot. Yet nothing but contempt for Americans and the law. Nothing but contempt for our military who always vote by mail and so many of those votes were not counted due to the Republican rigging in many states. Republicans tried to stop mail in votes, like those from our veterans, and these had to be subject to extreme timelines for being counted. Not to mention the Republican rigging of the post office. Where is the "Tea Party"?
at one of the early bird dinner specials ...
Indeed, funny how that works, eh? So much for the "Trump is stacking the courts" sky is falling hysteria of a couple months ago as ACB was being confirmed. So is it still necessary in your mind for Biden to "pack the court" as many here were supporting with great vigor just two short months ago?
Texas is the one state that can legally secede. I wish they would. No more federal funding for anything, no more SS for their seniors, No more SNAP, and no more any money for essential services. They would not last a month.
The more I think about it, the better separation sounds. The Coastal States of America, and The Central States of America. Traffic via Canada.
Canada is already used to that because of Alaska, but think of the income from toll booths.
We've got lots of western-province Canadians here in Yuma. At the moment, they can fly in, but can't pass the border in a car.
It's logical, if you think about it long enough...
Maybe a wall and they can pay for it.
A wall around Yuma, and Canada claims sovereignty!
Why can't they cross the border in a car?
That's how we crossed back in 1990...before you had to have a passport just to go to Canada
It's part of their anti-pandemic operations. Canadian authorities imagine Canadians crossing the border to go to superspreader events, and then returning the same evening. Easyn by ncar... not so easy by airplane.
Huh... who could have seen that coming?
My legal education consisted mainly of Perry Mason reruns and a cult-like following of one Saul Goodman in Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, and STILL I could have called that one the moment it was filed.
I admit that I didn't think SCOTUS would rule that way, but I was pleasantly surprised and was very glad I was wrong