Do you mind? You’re steaming up my laptop.
How many times has something like this been said recently - Just when you think it could not get more absurd -
But don’t worry, he is a good guy who is “trying to restore confidence in the system” and says it is he who is “trying to debunk” questions about “suspicious activities” that occurred in the elections.
It’s hard not to be saddened by number of Americans who voted for Trump, but if he runs again in 2024, I bet we can top 90 million votes for the Democratic candidate.
I have no idea how to chat privately on this software. However, the more the merrier.
From Twitter:
This wasn’t a cert. case. Certioriari is the proceudre that is used to seek review of a lower court decision, and is discretionary for the Court.
This was an attempt to apply under the Court’s original jurisidciton, not its appellate jurisdiciton. There seems to be some dispute between the judges whether a state can file its petition under the original jurisdiction as of right, even if it is meritless.
Alito and Thomas seem to be of the view that a state has a right to file a petition, it’s not subject to the Court even barring the petition. HOwever, even if the petition had been filed, they would not bhave granted any relief, which would be a statement as to the lack of any sound arguments in this case.
…But he never completed the entry-level training course, according to Meredith Mingledorff, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence, which includes the battalion.
“He kept washing out of courses,” said Mingledorff, citing his education records. “He’s not an intelligence analyst.”
In an interview, Merritt maintained that he graduated from the intelligence training program. But even by his own account, he was only a trainee with the 305th, at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and for just seven months more than 15 years ago.
His separation papers, which he provided to The Post, make no mention of intelligence training…
Nellie Bly, I need to apologize to you for making this public. Please forgive me.
So 9 to 0 then.
Good.
Thanks. I was misunderstanding the term.
Yes, they basically would have listened, but no way they were going to overturn a US election. I mean…they are extreme…but come on.
I just love that all three of Trump’s justices were 100% silent. They did not dissent in the least.
There’s an interesting article in the Independent about Trump’s fundamental misunderstanding about what “conservative” judges mean. Hint: it doesn’t mean they support what conservative politicians want.
I think that they misspelled “intelligent.”
More than “love,” I feel profound relief.
When RBG died, I was terrified that Trump would immediately appoint a new judge, in time for the election, that there would be a big mess in one or more states over the process, and that the Supremes would then vote in a way that handed the election to Trump.
It certainly could have turned out that way, but thankfully that scenario did not come to pass.
Is there some reason to disagree with them on this?
I thought I am free to bring a case to trial, even a bad case. It gets sorted out there. The only caveat being I am under the impression a lawyer is supposed to be a gatekeeper and refuse to file truly ridiculous cases that waste a court’s time.
This also might be a ridiculous case but it is a state filing it so there’s no filter. So sure, they can file and the supreme court just hands back a terse “no”. The end.
Maybe they could recommend the Texas Bar Association has a look at the Texas AG for sanctions for being a complete idiot and wasting the court’s time. That’d be cool.
I still would rather have had Justice Barrett abstain.
~Max
Yes. They didnt decide to not hear it based on merits. They ruled Texas had no standing to bring suit in the first place.
Which is true.
In fact they didnt even have to read the case to figure that out.
I was pretty sure of that. But I’d also have been pretty sure, until it happened, that 17 US states weren’t going to try to overturn one, either.
Even more reason the Texas AG should be sanctioned by the Bar Association.
If a Con Law student can tell you it was ridiculous I’d think your local Bar should have a word with you.
Yes. Some of the lawyers who’ve filed and argued for these utterly baseless, political, harebrained, off-the-wall lawsuits ought to be facing attorney disciplinary hearings toot sweet.
I’m tired of winning. There’s been so much winning and I’m tired of it.
I want them to just stay down.