They have no intention of seceding; they have every intention of undermining the government to take it over and use the resources of the national government to reward themselves, and to punish their enemies.
Totes. I’m the ultimate daydreamer about a fantasy land where we would have the opportunity to improve on things we do and I am curious to find out if conservatives ever think like that.
What do you think they’re doing?
That’s what I want to know! Do they mean new filing from California or has Sidney Powell joined in with her unique approach?
Withdrawn, when I read the thread today many updates were not showing.
I’m not sure if you are seriously asking or not, but attorney Robert Ellsworth Thomas III (with a Carguy341@yahoo.com e-mail address) has filed on behalf of the fictional states of New California and New Nevada in order to support the Texas motion.
It’s unclear what office he holds in those two states (or, indeed, how one could hold an office in a non-existent state).
Here’s a quote from the brief:
So, yeah…
I sincerely hope the SCOTUS justices are having a good laugh.
I picture them on a zoom call: “You guys, check out page 24…” “Bet you mean the misspelling, hahah!” " It’s downright Freudian!" “What kind of idiots…?”
This could unite conservative and liberal justices like never before.
I could see how maybe they would have some standing to sue under section 2 of the 14th amendment, in saying that Texas should have its number of representatives and other apportionment reduced. California (and all other states) may have standing that they should have more representation as a result of Texas’s actions and the 14th.
Outside of that, I do not see how one state could claim to have standing over the way any other state performs its elections.
I am not a lawyer, though.
does not grant a cause of action (right to sue and claim relief)
See section 5, also 2 U.S.C. 6 which automatically reduces representation.
~Max
I don’t understand your reply.
That would be up for the court to decide, wouldn’t it?
It’s not really “automatic”. Someone has to actually implement and enforce that. If it were not enforced, if Texas could disenfranchise a substantial number of its voters without congress acting to reduce its apportionment, what other relief could a state ask for?
In any case, I was just pointing out the actual harm that would be done, and the actual relief that could be desired, should one state disagree with the voting of another.
Conservatives are trying to improve on the things they want.
18 Republican states have filed an emergency case with the SCOTUS about your unlawful usurpation of my best words.
Hell, they spelled State wrong- “sate”.
These people need to be committed.
some speculation it will be smacked down tonight .
I was kidding about Sidney Powell because of all the errors in her filings, but I was wondering if the wording was in error. Apparently not. You can just create “new” states when you file a brief in court about not liking the election results! Alrighty then! Holy shit.
Under the silly hypothetical (my own) that Trump voting states would secede and form a new nation, what specifically would they try to improve with this brand new opportunity? Especially wrt the basic structures of government, don’t get bogged down in policy. (part quoting my original post: “would they simply retain federalism, the EC, two senators per state, etc.?”)
Maybe I missed a few posts, but I’m struck by the apparent fact that not a single person responding to this thread seems able or willing to formulate an argument in support of the Texas lawsuit. Yes, I know many posters lean left, but you’d think if this suit had any merit at all someone might step up to the plate.
I too hope SCOTUS rejects hearing the suit, with maximum snark.
I want them to reject it, and ask that every single person signing on gets disbarred. Is that too much?
“Denied with Extreme Prejudice”
Or how about a paraphrase from the principal in Billy Madison:
"This case sent to us is one of the most insanely idiotic things this court has ever read. At no point in this rambling, incoherent brief was there anything even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this country is now dumber for having been inflicted by it. This Court awards you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "