51 thoughts on “Louisiana Joins Texas In Motion Against GA, MI, PA, & WI After SCOTUS Denies Emergency Injunctive Relief In PA Case

        1. Eye rolling aside, the intent of these frivolous lawsuits are not intended to “win” in any court, but rather to undermine our democracy. THAT part is infuriating as well as seditious.

          Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “At some point the courts will invoke Rule 11 and end this silliness.”

        But not at this point. Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Missouri have all reportedly joined Texas as co-plaintifs. If Rule 11 were even a remote possibility, none of them would take the risk of being sanctioned.

        I say “reportedly” because I haven’t seen the paperwork.

        Like

        1. “Texas Sues Four States in Supreme Court Over Results in 2020 Presidential Race. This is a publicity stunt. One state has no standing to complain how another state(s) choose their presidential electors. Plus @KenPaxtonTX fails to site any evidence of fraud,” Jenkins tweeted on Monday.

          Laurence Tribe, legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, also suggested that Texas may not have standing to bring the case and therefore the court may decide not to hear it.

          “This is truly ridiculous,” Tribe said. “If the 50 sister States could sue one another to overturn each other’s election results, there’d be a mind-blowing cascade of at least 50! (ie 50 x 49 x 48 x … x3 x2) intra-family Electoral College megasuits. Endless!”

          https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-texas-election-lawsuit-1553409

          Not that Trump gives a damn about tearing us apart (Raffensperger is now a “enemy of the people”), but SCOTUS will rule. Eventually. It may take days, weeks or months. But after Monday, the die is cast.

          At that point those who need Trump’s blessing to keep from political damage or death threats will have to donate cash. Can’t use taxpayer monies to support this judicial travesty.

          Liked by 3 people

  1. Okay, let’s toss those states. Nobody gets those votes. This leaves the number of electoral votes to win as

    (538 – 20 -16 – 16 – 10)/2 = 238

    How many does Trump currently have from the remaining states? 232. Oopsy.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Okay, let’s toss those states. Nobody gets those votes.”

      That’s not the relief the Texas lawsuit seeks. Also, since the Constitution requires electors to be appointed, it is unlikely SCOTUS would even consider such a remedy.

      Like

      1. So their argument is that the elections were soooo corrupted by the legislative actions that the vote should be overturned, AND that the loser be declared the winner? Yeah, that’ll happen.

        Plus, in order to do that, they will have to accept into fact the contentions that have already been declared as meritless. If they were going to do that, they wouldn’t have rejected the PA suit, since it assumes the same contentions.

        I’ve always had my doubts about you, but in addition to this SCOTUS fantasy, you have also upped the Kool-Aid with enough LSD to believe that the Democrat in the Virginia AG’s office would side with this fantasy.

        Move to Michigan, start the revolution, and wait for the FBI.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Plus, in order to do that, they will have to accept into fact the contentions that have already been declared as meritless.”

          No. The Texas case makes arguments that have not yet been tried. SCOTUS, should it hear the case, will be acting as the trial court of original jurisdiction, not in its usual capacity as a court of appeals.

          Like

          1. RE: “Like what? Just one will do.”

            OK: When state election administrators fail to adhere to their own laws in the selection of federal electors, then the state violates the U.S. Constitution.

            Like

          2. Let’s assume that’s true. Now give specifics, i.e., a specific state (one of the four preferably), the and law, and the action that has not been upheld by the respective State’s Supreme Court.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “So their argument is that the elections were soooo corrupted by the legislative actions that the vote should be overturned, AND that the loser be declared the winner? ”

        No. Their argument is that the defendant states violated their own existing statutes administratively. The legislative actions you mention are not at issue, except to the extent election official ignored them. The suit seeks relief in the form of allowing the several legislatures to appoint electors directly.

        Like

      3. Texas needs to sue itself.

        “Texas’ Republican Gov. Gregg Abbott extended early voting by a week and expanded the period in which mail-in ballots could be hand-delivered. “Using his emergency authority because of the pandemic,” Glenn Smith, a Texas Democratic political consultant, told me, “our governor accomplished exactly what his attorney general is saying other states did, improperly. Nonsense. None of this harmed the presidential election. It helped turnout.”

        https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/opinions/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-election-lawsuit-moore/index.html

        And this is a blatant attempt to rig the results in Texas. Sue! Sue!

        (“Don’t call me Sue, Shirley…” or words to that effect.)

        NB: “it helped turnout”. That is the big complaint. We know from boasting claims by Trump and other sleazy Republican operatives, pols, and the like that encouraging turnout will stop Republicans from holding office. And so the effort to steal this election by the regime continues.

        STOP THE STEAL, Biden won in the cleanest election in history. Period.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. RE: “Texas needs to sue itself.”

          That’s ridiculous. Has anyone alleged that the vote tally in Texas isn’t what it should have been? Without that, there’s no basis for calling the lawsuit hypocritical.

          Also, your CNN cite misrepresents the nature of the lawsuit when it says, “To make his case, the Texas AG marches out the same unproven allegations numerous courts have already found specious.” That is simply untrue, as the argument in the Texas suit doesn’t rely on any allegations of fraud or ballot stuffing.

          Like

          1. Of course Trump is not going to question Texas results. That’s silly.

            Even though Republican voter fraud and election irregularities are the biggest scandals in the last 2 years, Democrats relied on a good turnout and won.

            You do understand that all these phony allegation were just preparatory moves for the SCOTUS to rule on the election. That is why we are getting third parties like the Thomas More Society, Kelly, Texas, Louisiana and others the flood the courts and make it look like certain states can’t hold fair elections.

            It is criminal use of the courts like Trump has done all his life.

            Nothing new, but unfortunately he is dragging the whole country down into his pig sty and we are suffering for it.

            When a sitting president says for years, over and over, that if he doesn’t win, it’s rigged, we have seditious behavior on a grand scale.

            Simple as that.

            Oh, and Trump stuffing his wallet with sucker donations for his personal use. There is that blot on our system, too.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “You do understand that all these phony allegation were just preparatory moves for the SCOTUS to rule on the election.”

            No, I don’t. I believe that people who think that way are conspiracy-theory nut cases.

            Like

          3. The lawsuits are looking at fraud. The contention is that the “illegal” expansion of voting caused fraud. Then you have to show that is in fact the case. Not just because it might have, or someone said that someone saw, etc.

            SCOTUS has already ruled that the changes were Constitutional.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “The lawsuits are looking at fraud. The contention is that the ‘illegal’ expansion of voting caused fraud.”

            False. The contention is that illegal conduct of the election in the defendant states violated the U.S. Constitution.

            Like

  2. OK, folks. Here are the facts.

    Trump could extort, threaten, bribe, or insult state governors, Secretaries of State, local election officials in Republican strongholds, so we’ll get an aspiring felon from Texas to file a “daisy cutter” suit directly to SCOTUS. After all, all that cash to get another right wing ideologue on the court has to get some results. (Damn, McConnell is expensive to bribe. It’s eating into Trump’s retirement fund.)

    Getting Louisiana in on the deal should be no problem. They are bound to have felons needing pardons.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. “Conspiracy theories and falsehoods are not facts.”

        Coffee through the nose worthy. Since you wrote try to adhere to it. Maybe repeat as a daily mantra…

        Liked by 2 people

      2. The converse is true also. FACTS are not conspiracy theories or falsehods.

        It is a FACT that Texas AG Paxton IS in very deep legal jeopardy. He has been convicted (and paid a fine) for investment fraud and is NOW under indictment for a second offense carrying jail time up to 99 years. And he is under FBI investigation for bribery and corruption. If you do not think that the hope of a pardon to end these legal woes is behind his decision to file this ludicrous lawsuit then I have stock in a very nice East River bridge I could let you have for a bargain price.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. RE: “It is a FACT that Texas AG Paxton IS in very deep legal jeopardy.”

          So what? He is legally in office. The lawsuit is legal. If you have evidence that he is being blackmailed or extorted, lets see it. Otherwise you’re just inventing counterfactuals.

          Like

          1. He is not being blackmailed or extorted. He is fishing for a PARDON by doing the bidding of Trump. There may not be evidence at this point, but the optics are pretty damning.

            And you have gone after Biden with less “bad optics” then are present here, so don’t even play your little Dr. Semantic games.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. “Getting Louisiana in on the deal should be no problem. They are bound to have felons needing pardons.”

      Prerequisite for holding office in that state.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. He clearly did, and LA does have a history of crooked politicians. Perhaps that’s where some on the forum learned to distrust the political process?

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Uh, what conspiracies and falsehoods?”

      To claim extortion without evidence qualifies, and is irresponsible.

      Like

      1. When Trump called, the threats were real. Then he backed them up by riling up his mob to threaten the life of a Michigan official, insulting Kemp so his fans could react. Or low level pols and election officials seeing their careers in jeopardy.

        That is seditious, not just irresponsible. Your hero is a friggin’ traitor. Period.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “That is seditious, not just irresponsible. Your hero is a friggin’ traitor. Period.”

          You are out of your head.

          Like

          1. It does seem a bit “fealty” like. At some point it becomes a psychological imperative that nothing can penetrate. It’s eye opening to see the extent to which the emotional can overtake the intellectual. I closest I’ve probably come to such a state was as a teen with raging hormones….

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Hmmm. Either you or Len is out of their head. I think it is the one of you who scours the dark web to find proof that up is down, left is right, black is white and that the election was stolen from Dear Leader by a massive but incredibly well-hidden conspiracy involving China, Communists and Hugo Chavez.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. Oh please. You throw more insults than anyone else. Your permanent throughfare is the low road. Blow it out your tail pipe.

        Like

        1. The “insults” I throw are simple statements of fact or highly defensible opinions. For example, Trump supporters have to be very gullible to be hoodwinked a public figure who is know to be an egregious liar and con man. Insulting? Maybe. True? Most definitely.

          Your referring to the majority of the people of this state and their elected representatives as “children” is a different kettle of fish. Silly but still insulting remark with no defensible basis other than that you disagree with them.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. In the same way that treating someone like an equal when you meet them will offend/upset them (they don’t agree), presenting someone with facts that contradict their preferred view of reality will often have the same effect.

            At some point in their lives fixing that personality disorder is probably beyond them….

            Liked by 2 people

          2. LMAO, so you are going to claim your constant insults are facts? I might add you severely delusional as well so maybe there is a reason. You are a mental case that doesn’t realize it.
            Nah….

            Like

          3. You have trouble reading?
            What you call “insults” I call facts OR defensible opinions.
            I will add, calling out lies and nonsensical logic for what they are.

            Or, as in your case, pointing out the childishness of non-stop school yard taunts.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Not a chance with the children in charge.”

      You are right, but one can always hope. When I wrote the line about Virginia, it had not yet been reported that eight other states had joined the suit.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s