That's just an extra step added on, it doesn't replace the missing link between the action being done (steal underpants / weats masks) and the result expected (profit / communism).
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
The real red wave.
Hawaii certifies Biden's win of state's presidential vote
HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii on Tuesday certified the results of its presidential vote after the state Supreme Court dismissed an elections complaint challenging the entirety of the Nov. 3 general election in the islands.
apnews.com
Is every damn Republican going to fight their State Supreme Court about mail-in votes in Biden won states? Why don't they fight the mail-in votes in all the states Trump won if it's so unconstitutional? Wait a minute...
On another note, it's very unlikely the Supreme Court actually hears the Texas case. As I mentioned before, the only reason Gore vs Bush happened the way it did was because Bush was the registered winner of Florida, and all the USSC did was stop the recounting, allowing Florida to certify it's vote before the Safe Harbor deadline. They never "overturned" anything. The USSC overturning an election would established a very destructive precedent, disenfranchise millions of voters, open the gate for any state to sue any other state for laws those states don't like, which in turn would muddle the USSC with constant state lawsuits as they are the only court that is supposed to handle interstate conflicts, etc. One state has no standing to tell another state how to handle it's election.
The fact they denied the PA certification injunction tells me they are not going to go to bat for Trump on this.
On another note, it's very unlikely the Supreme Court actually hears the Texas case. As I mentioned before, the only reason Gore vs Bush happened the way it did was because Bush was the registered winner of Florida, and all the USSC did was stop the recounting, allowing Florida to certify it's vote before the Safe Harbor deadline. They never "overturned" anything. The USSC overturning an election would established a very destructive precedent, disenfranchise millions of voters, open the gate for any state to sue any other state for laws those states don't like, which in turn would muddle the USSC with constant state lawsuits as they are the only court that is supposed to handle interstate conflicts, etc. One state has no standing to tell another state how to handle it's election.
The fact they denied the PA certification injunction tells me they are not going to go to bat for Trump on this.
I have seen both used and usually prefer USSC because every time I type SCOTUS I snicker because it makes me think of the word SCROTUM.
I have the same issue with POTUS and POTATO. It's why I just say the word President.
I have the same issue with POTUS and POTATO. It's why I just say the word President.
Dave
Staff member
Nor have I.
I don't know what to tell you guys. You don't have to agree, but as long as you know what I am saying is it really a big deal?
Don't really feel that is a comparable example, since SCOTUS and USSC still point at the same body, and not different items used for a baby and a dog, respectively. It's more like how some people call McDonalds either by it's full name, MD, MickieDs, McDs, McDicks, etc.
I accept the funny looks for using an acronym that isn't the most popular one, but I just hope it won't turn into a thing where people attempt to correct me every time I use an alternate acronym. It's my hope people would understand what I am talking about considering my location of discussion. That is all.
SCROTUS it is.
I will admit that USSC can be confused with other branches though, aka US Space Command, so I will probably stick to just typing out US Supreme Court in most instances or SCROTUS when I feel like being cheeky.
It does not really. I am just continuing the line of discussion, I don't like not replying to direct conversations towards me, so people better understand my point on the matter, as I was unsure if I was clear in the beginning. If people really wanted me to call it SCOTUS I will, it's not a big deal, it just seemed like people took issue with me using an alternate one, which I found odd on ground that many places have multiple abbreviations.
I will admit that USSC can be confused with other branches though, aka US Space Command, so I will probably stick to just typing out US Supreme Court in most instances or SCROTUS when I feel like being cheeky.
Last edited:
Wouldn't that be if your feeling ballsy?
Nope, it's for when he's feeling a little nuts.
2016 MAGA "Damn I love democracy! The people have spoken! USA!"
Biden wins 2020. "You guys right, democracy is great!"
2020 MAGA "ACTUALLY we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy! Make the state legislators vote so my guy wins!"
I swear to god the amount of this shit is sickening me to my core.
Biden wins 2020. "You guys right, democracy is great!"
2020 MAGA "ACTUALLY we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy! Make the state legislators vote so my guy wins!"
I swear to god the amount of this shit is sickening me to my core.
Last edited:
I am a bit worried about Texas v. Swing States, to be honest. The argument thrown in that expanding voting by executive fiat is probably what got five of the Supremes intrigued in the case.
But the main gist is that the proof that Texas was directly damaged by the actions of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania et al. is pretty much, at its core, laughable.
But the main gist is that the proof that Texas was directly damaged by the actions of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania et al. is pretty much, at its core, laughable.
They put it in the docket and has given the deadline for the defense to submit their own counter claims. Then they will look at it and decide whether to litigate it or throw it out.
For those worried about all the other red states signing on, I wouldn't. It's all politics. If this actually got litigated and the election overturned, that is going to cause major unrest and all these other states would want Texas to fall on that sword alone. They are only signing on because they believe it's going to get thrown out anyways and signing on in support for a futile lawsuit makes them look good for the MAGA base.
"All the republicans don't really like trump. They are just supporting him so they can look good after he loses in 2016."
It's not exactly false though. Half the people that now suck his dick on the regular trashed him in 2016. Everyone assumed he was going to lose, and then he won, and they dived right into full on sycophant mode. Why? Because Trump winning was the mark that the majority of the "Republican Base" was no longer controlled by Republicans, it had shifted and grown into the MAGA nation. Trump took their voters, and they were terrified that he could turn it against them at any time and force them to lose their primary. It's always been optics.
Why are they still supporting him in this coup attempt? While I agree some of them probably are hoping it succeeds, I feel the vast majority simply understand that just because Trump isn't going to be President anymore, does not mean he won't keep his grip on the base. They are always going to be terrified of what his sweaty little hands can do to them when he decides to press that Twitter button. They are hoping that silence or vague "He has every right to challenge stuff." will keep them off the radar.
That isn't even getting into the fear of it all. The Republicans created this rabid base, and Trump full on weaponized them. Hell, this is even what the PA Senate Majority Leader said recently in regards to PA Republicans attempting to stop certification.
They raised, nurtured, and trained the leopard and then let a madman take it from them and teach it to love eating faces.
Could the Supreme Court do something unprecedented and overturn the election? Yes, but the chances are so astronomically low. Not only would it set a huge precedent allowing states to sue over all types of "state" issues from legalization to voter suppression to clean air laws, all of which would be plunged to the SCROTUS, but it would basically destroy the bench as installing an autocrat means the checks and balances will become worthless. They have incredible job security, so it's unlikely they would give that up for anyone, let alone Trump.
Except they want a republican-lead autocracy.
Also, keep in mind that the states that have joined the lawsuit have done so at the behest of the AGs of those states, probably. Three of the states, I believe, have democratic governors. So these are not the U.S. senators or even the governors that are involving themselves. These are Republicans much lower on the totem pole and probably are not the Reagan or Bush era conservatives.
While I can agree Alito and Thomas are pretty on brand for that, I have not seen enough out of the new guys that leans this direction. There is even talks that Barret may even recuse herself from even seeing it should it get to litigation as to prevent a conflict of interest. Again, I am not saying it couldn't happen, I am just not ready to jump on the gloom train when all the lower courts, including judges Trump and McConnell appointed during their big judge-o-rama-thon, have been tossing out all these cases.
This isn't even going into the fact that most politicians on both sides care about money above all else, and markets don't like uncertainty, and they really wouldn't like a possible Civil War.
They also didn't "join" the lawsuit as many people mistake. They signed a letter of support for the lawsuit, which is basically a "We agree with Texas but we ain't gonna involve ourselves outside of that."
One last thing I should mention, but the entire argument from the Texas AG is that the legislature is supposed to be the ones to handle changes to election law, but that the four states listed put through changes to the election process without the legislature which means it defies the constitution.
Now here is the funny thing. So did Texas. Gov. Abbot extended the early voting period and also gave some limited expansions on mail-in voting without the legislature. Other lower counties also added new methods to vote, like drive-thru voting, due to COVID.
Usually, if the SCROTUS looks at what the four states did and is like "Yes, that is unconstitutional." It isn't going to be effecting just those states. When Roe v Wade happened, it didn't just make it so abortion couldn't be illegal in Texas, it expanded that rule to all states that had banned abortion. Pretty much every state that altered how the election was handled this year without first going through the legislator will have to also have their votes voided should SCROTUS agree.
This is another reason I don't really see it happening. We are looking at the disenfranchisement of possibly a quarter or more of the nations voters.
Now here is the funny thing. So did Texas. Gov. Abbot extended the early voting period and also gave some limited expansions on mail-in voting without the legislature. Other lower counties also added new methods to vote, like drive-thru voting, due to COVID.
Usually, if the SCROTUS looks at what the four states did and is like "Yes, that is unconstitutional." It isn't going to be effecting just those states. When Roe v Wade happened, it didn't just make it so abortion couldn't be illegal in Texas, it expanded that rule to all states that had banned abortion. Pretty much every state that altered how the election was handled this year without first going through the legislator will have to also have their votes voided should SCROTUS agree.
This is another reason I don't really see it happening. We are looking at the disenfranchisement of possibly a quarter or more of the nations voters.
I think you missed some points in my post, as I mentioned should those four be overturned due to election changes prior to the election being deemed unconstitutional, then all states that did the same will also be invalidated by the ruling, including Texas, South Carolina, Kentucky, etc. It would be way more then 15%..
The Supreme Court does not make rulings that only effect singular states. They cover the entire country, like my example of Roe v Wade, which was a Texas lawsuit that rose to the Supreme Court and ended in not just Texas being unable to illegalize early abortion, but every other state that also had illegalized abortion.
By my researched count, 30 states have changed their election rules and processes prior to the election day, pretty much all of them done through the governorship.
If the crux of the lawsuit, that being that "changing election rules before election day without the legislature is unconstitutional", then up to 30 states will, by nature of the ruling, also have their votes tossed.
This could go poorly for them, since tossing those "invalid" votes would give more weight to the mail-in votes, which didn't exactly go their way...
--Patrick