I wonder how al the meme-ers who were going on about how she was The One who would bring it all in, are going to be taking this.
But in the end, a tip of the hat to SCOTUS…
RULE OF *&^$@% LAW, magaboys.
Hey, speaking from my leafy North Houston suburb, let’s not. As corrupt as Texas politics may be, I’d hate to see the free-for-all of graft that would result if they ever did secede.
Meanwhile, just heard Paxton’s stupid lawsuit got kicked to the curb 9-0. Yay. Eat shit, Ken, but be sure to save some for Ted Cruz and all the Repubs who disgraced themselves by signing on to that steaming heap of feces.
Rudy Giuliani spoke with Trump after the ruling.
Trump says he has “other options” left to look at.
So now, all the Republican congressmen who fell in line behind the suit, next time they’re up for re-election, can try to explain to their constituents how they claimed it doesn’t really matter who they vote for…
Sure. One option that I’m in favor of is that he STFU and slither off to Mar-a-Lago, never to return.
Their constituents wanted them to sign on. I strongly suspect most of them knew this was nonsense.
The legal war is over, but the political war has just begun.
Trump’s lost cause was a fundraising cash cow. That ought to tell you everything.
Or better yet, be led out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit, which would largely render him invisible.
That would be a gift to his cult…
I know it’s being portrayed as unanimous but in all fairness it was 7-2. Alito and Thomas would have heard the case, believing they HAD to hear any case in which the Court has original jurisdiction. They did say they would not have provided the injunctive relief requested by Texas.
The legal battle is over in the Judicial branch, but Monday will have some drama and on January 6th Republican Senators and Congresspersons are expected to disrupt things by raising objections and causing votes to delay the proceedings in the Legislative branch. They will eventually fail also, but the monster is still not dead – there is more carnage ahead. After that might be when Trump REALLY goes apeshit. Just imagine how bad things can get once he knows there is no avoiding the facts, all appeals are exhausted, and he realizes he really does have nothing at all left to lose. Only then will he go full ‘no more Mr. Nice Guy’.
Was the intent to just throw out the results or to throw out just certain ballots and count again? I was wondering what happens if someone voted for Biden but also voted for some Republican nominee for a different spot that’s on the same ballot. If that had been successful, would that get thrown out too?
The relief that Texas sought was for the Court to block the four defendant states from casting their collective 62 electoral votes for Biden, and to order their legislatures to appoint either new electors or none at all. They made no request regarding any other outcome of balloting in those states.
All true.
But the point about fundraising is that whether Trump goes apeshit or not isn’t the deeper story, which is that there is big money behind efforts to overturn a democratic outcome.
It’s one thing to claim voter fraud. It’s another to have a campaign based on populist authoritarianism. But to then openly question an outcome that is so blatantly obvious and turn that into a fundraising machine…takes the insanity to a new level.
Going forward, a campaign that proposes a radical new political order is very, very viable - and this episode proves it beyond all reasonable doubt. If you thought 2020 was bad, just wait: 2024 ought to be loads of fun.
That’s unanimous for what matters: that Texas, with or without 17 other states, doesn’t get to overturn the election.
It doesn’t matter now, but that’s what the case would have decided. Texas wanted to suspend the appointment of electors until the case was decided (i.e. an injunction). Alito and Thomas stated that they would not have granted such an injunction, even though they believed the Court should hear the case.
By your own reasoning, you cannot possibly construe this as 7-2. As you say, Alito and Thomas have (consistently) espoused a legal theory that the Court must review any case brought by a state against another state, regardless of the merits. They appear to believe that Texas could submit a piece of toilet paper with “Pennsylvania sucks” written on it, and the Court should hear arguments. Restating this opinion says nothing in itself about the merits of the Texas case. So they could have chosen simply to restate this opinion, remaining silent and neutral/unknown on the merits. But they chose also to speak to the merits: that there were none.
9-0.
That assumes that Trump at some point has been a nice guy.
Yes, it’s a unanimous dismissal. There was variation in the reasons for the dismissal, but all 9 judges agreed it should be dismissed.
All three of Trump’s appointments agreed that it didn’t even get past the standing test, which is interesting.
I suppose folks can characterize this anyway they want, but the Court being the Court they released no information regarding any votes that may have been taken so it’s impossible to say that this was 9-0, 7-2 or 5-4. All we can say for certain based on the Court’s statement is that:
-
A majority of justices believed that Texas did not show that it has a legal interest how other states conducts their elections, and therefore lacks standing to bring the case before the court.
-
At least two justices would have heard the case, but would not have granted the temporary injunction to delay the appointment of electors requested by Texas. They made no further statement as to the merits of the case.
Technically, it’s possible that other justices could have disagreed with the Court’s determination as well, but chose to remain silent.