ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS says Nyet to Trump

Bill4411

Bill4411

All-American
Jun 24, 2001
8,560
4,029
113
www.rawstory.com

Supreme Court shoots down scheme by Texas and Republicans to overturn the 2020 election

President Donald Trump has lost in court once again."The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the presidential election results in four battleground states captured by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.," The New York Times...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com

The New York Times reported Friday. “The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it ‘has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.'”
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: bigmac76, Ohio Guy, IU73 and 7 others
Bill4411 said:
www.rawstory.com

Supreme Court shoots down scheme by Texas and Republicans to overturn the 2020 election

President Donald Trump has lost in court once again."The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the presidential election results in four battleground states captured by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.," The New York Times...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com

The New York Times reported Friday. “The court, in a brief unsigned order, said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it ‘has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.'”
Click to expand...
Germans Bomb Pearl Harbor!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: bigmac76, JamieDimonsBalls, Rockport Zebra and 5 others
So it appears the Democratic doomsday scenario of a Trump SCOTUS stealing the election for him did not come to fruition.

If the D's by some miracle take the GA seats, I hope my Doomsday scenario of Democrats adding states, packing SCOTUS, ending the filibuster does not come to fruition.

Collectively as a country let's ease up on the throttle a little bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls, stollcpa and Rockport Zebra
HooDatGuy said:
So it appears the Democratic doomsday scenario of a Trump SCOTUS stealing the election for him did not come to fruition.

If the D's by some miracle take the GA seats, I hope my Doomsday scenario of Democrats adding states, packing SCOTUS, ending the filibuster does not come to fruition.

Collectively as a country let's ease up on the throttle a little bit.
Click to expand...
DO YOU MEAN I’M GOING TO HAVE TO TALK TO MY FAMILY?!?!?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: iuwclurker, JamieDimonsBalls, Spartans9312 and 3 others
HooDatGuy said:
If the D's by some miracle take the GA seats, I hope my Doomsday scenario of Democrats adding states, packing SCOTUS, ending the filibuster does not come to fruition.
Click to expand...
Ending the filibuster won't be necessary if Mitch doesn't abuse it. That will be his decision.
 
The so-called Democratic doomsday scenario of a Trump SCOTUS stealing the election for him indeed did not come to fruition.

But it is crystal clear that the current administration, with direct in-name support of over 100 members of congress, indeed did try to use the SCOTUS to steal an election and nullify the will of millions of voters, for absolutely no reasons that are based in reality.

So if it was a fear, it was well justified. Thankfully the Trump legal team was too laughably incompetent to make any coherent arguments, though to be fair, courts tend to insist on fact-based contentions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IU73, DrHoops, cosmickid and 4 others
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
You guys always say that when it isn't your turn to drive.
Click to expand...

I sure hope the Dems don’t pack the courts like the cons have been doing the last four years. And as far as SCOTUS goes, they didn’t let RBG’s seat even get cold a month before an election. Yes, I sure hope the Dems don’t pack the SCOTUS, like the cons actually just did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
You guys always say that when it isn't your turn to drive.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I didn’t see a whole lot of Democrats reaching out the last four years. How do you make a deal with the devil?

Fwiw I’m heartened by some of what I’ve seen from the incoming Biden admin. Seems like a bunch of establishment, retread, swamp monsters. I can live with Democratic corporatism the next four years. Their shitty foreign policy won’t affect my day to day life all that much.
 
ButHerEmails said:
I sure hope the Dems don’t pack the courts like the cons have been doing the last four years. And as far as SCOTUS goes, they didn’t let RBG’s seat even get cold a month before an election. Yes, I sure hope the Dems don’t pack the SCOTUS, like the cons actually just did.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you understand what court packing is....
 
outside shooter said:
The so-called Democratic doomsday scenario of a Trump SCOTUS stealing the election for him indeed did not come to fruition.

But it is crystal clear that the current administration, with direct in-name support of over 100 members of congress, indeed did try to use the SCOTUS to steal an election and nullify the will of millions of voters, for absolutely no reasons that are based in reality.

So if it was a fear, it was well justified. Thankfully the Trump legal team was too laughably incompetent to make any coherent arguments, though to be fair, courts tend to insist on fact-based contentions.
Click to expand...
I am especially surprised that even Amy Coney Barrett voted "Nyet."
 




Honestly will likely be a long time before I can likely justify voting for a Republican again. This has been a totally deplorable 4 years, and they somehow managed to make it even worse at the end.

There is perhaps 1/3rd of the party that remains respectable.... and at least most of the Senators seemed to refuse to go along. But holy hell, are these some really pathetic people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker, IU73, Bill4411 and 9 others
Noodle said:
She’s not stupid, and she certainly is not Trump’s lackey.
Click to expand...
Yep, he’s a flash in the pan and she’s gonna be in it for as long as she wants. Trump is finding out that America’s democratic government doesn’t work like the back room deals he was used to. He tried to rig the system, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU73, Bill4411 and DrHoops
meridian said:
She is the newest. She got that job because of Trump. She seemed not quite, well, never mind1
Click to expand...
She got the job because she is supremely qualified. I may not agree with her views but she has certainly earned her spot. Trump had little to do with it other than he was the republican that won in 2016. If you think there would have been a different outcome had Bush/Rubio/Cruz would have won, you’re delusional. Once Ginsburg passed ACB was always the replacement
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812, IU73, Spartans9312 and 1 other person
twenty02 said:
View embedded media




Honestly will likely be a long time before I can likely justify voting for a Republican again. This has been a totally deplorable 4 years, and they somehow managed to make it even worse at the end.

There is perhaps 1/3rd of the party that remains respectable.... and at least most of the Senators seemed to refuse to go along. But holy hell, are these some really pathetic people.
Click to expand...
This is why I didn’t hesitate to vote straight ticket on November 3rd. I actually think governor Holcomb is a reasonable moderate republican and I normally would’ve voted to give him another 4 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
ButHerEmails said:
I sure hope the Dems don’t pack the courts like the cons have been doing the last four years. And as far as SCOTUS goes, they didn’t let RBG’s seat even get cold a month before an election. Yes, I sure hope the Dems don’t pack the SCOTUS, like the cons actually just did.
Click to expand...
Words have meaning. "Pack the court" takes years of having the votes. Expanding the court is no better than the thrown out law suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812
ButHerEmails said:
Expand - to make larger

To go from 9 current seats to more seats would be expanding.

Despite the con attempts to rewrite the longstanding definitions of words, only Trump supporting idiots but into the rewriting.
Click to expand...

Whatever dude “Court packing” has been common parlance for almost 100 years, and everyone knows what it means, except for you apparently.

Yes “expanding” works as well. You win?

edit: More references to court packing from the “Trump supporting idiots” at the Washington Post

 
Last edited:
Rockport Zebra said:
Words have meaning. "Pack the court" takes years of having the votes. Expanding the court is no better than the thrown out law suit.
Click to expand...

Cool story. Now, show me the constitutional amendment or the particular federal law that says the Supreme Court can only be 9 seats. Shouldn’t be too hard for a member of the law and order party.
 
HooDatGuy said:
Whatever dude “Court packing” has been common parlance for almost 100 years, and everyone knows what it means, except for you apparently.

Yes “expanding” works as well. You win?
Click to expand...

Packing the court is what the cons have been doing for four years. As soon as dem is elected to the White House, you suddenly have an aversion to the practice.
 
ButHerEmails said:
Cool story. Now, show me the constitutional amendment or the particular federal law that says the Supreme Court can only be 9 seats. Shouldn’t be too hard for a member of the law and order party.
Click to expand...
You know that it doesn't. If you get 13 then when the Republicans win again shall it expand to 17. In 100 years is could be a very large number. Have at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
ButHerEmails said:
Cool story. Now, show me the constitutional amendment or the particular federal law that says the Supreme Court can only be 9 seats. Shouldn’t be too hard for a member of the law and order party.
Click to expand...
The number 9 is indeed set by federal law. Judiciary Act of 1869.

By the way, you seem to be trying to boost your own ego by asking pointless questions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812, Aloha Hoosier, stollcpa and 2 others
Noodle said:
The number 9 is indeed set by federal law. Judiciary Act of 1869.

By the way, you seem to be trying to boost your own ego by asking pointless questions.
Click to expand...

Yes, and federal law can be changed. I meant to say set in stone but good catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

Court of Appeals to Trump: You're not immune from prosecution

Replies
40
Views
700
The Water Cooler
IU_Hickory
IU_Hickory
C

Jan 9th and the COA oral arguments...

Replies
12
Views
574
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
Circlejoe

Racial animosity among Trump voters

Replies
77
Views
3K
The Water Cooler
bailey777
bailey777
JamieDimonsBalls

WaPo Top 10 Dem Presidential Nominees

Replies
176
Views
6K
The Water Cooler
IUCrazy2
I
S

For those who asked about what Trump did.

Replies
125
Views
7K
The Water Cooler
jet812
J
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back