Don’t Mess with Texas

Source: U.S. Supreme Court filing (PDF).

Given the pushback in this forum on the SCOTUS amicus brief in another thread, this filing may be of some interest. The defendant states in the Texas election lawsuit had until 3:00 p.m. today to file responses. After they did, Texas filed a response to them.

17 thoughts on “Don’t Mess with Texas

  1. “this filing may be of some interest“

    Not really. A ranting death rattle is uninteresting to those who view the already deceased corpse with disdain.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “”The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”

    PA AG Josh Shapiro,

    There is that word I have favored for months: seditious.

    I wonder if Texas would like the other states to sue it next election in case Democrats lose. After all, voter suppression, thy name is Texas. Case in point, 1 absentee ballot box for a city of 5 million.

    Although, by the next election, Texas will go blue. Trump only got about 52% of the vote in Texas. That is a “win” for Democrats.

    BTW: Sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

    Hashtag LIBERATE fits that to a “T”, as in Trump.

    So now the phony data evidence, affidavits, bullying, extortion, threatening by the president are exposed for what they truly are: sedition.

    “Lock Him Up…” his own crowds demanded that, we should abide.

    Americans are dying at a great clip, and our president is playing games for his ego.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Well, will the Trump legal scholars polluting this forum with intellectual and legal garbage about the election admit now how wrong they have been?

    “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

    SCOTUS has now given this nonsense the short shrift it deserved.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. So, they really, really wanted to rule on the merits, but dang – Texas did not have standing?


        When one state sues another, they both have standing.

        More importantly, SCOTUS DID rule on the merits . . . Read it again . . . “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

        That directly rules on their phony claims. And shoots them down in flames. 9-0.

        Your silly and seditious arguments and your inability to admit how flawed they are – even when SCOTUS goes 9-0 against them – shows how unserious ANY of you Trump legal scholars actually are.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Your quote is the issue of standing.

          SCOTUS did not rule on whether the 4 states followed the law in their election, it ruled that Texas did not have standing to intervene.

          Only residents of those States or the President would appear to have standing.


          1. Uh, The President DID attach himself to the lawsuit. So much for writing this off as a mere question of “standing.”


            The issue was whether citizens of Texas OR DONALD TRUMP were injured by the election procedures of PA, GA, MI or WI. The answer was . . . .”No!” You can pretend that this ruling was merely about “standing” if that floats your boat, but the fact is that the reason the case was killed was that they saw no merit in it.

            But, hey, it is obvious. You Trumpheads are going to stick to the seditious fiction that Biden votes cast by “urban” voters are fraudulent votes no matter how many cases making that claim have been thrown out of court and no matter how many times the Supreme Court summarily dismisses such claims (At least twice).

            Liked by 2 people

          2. The ruling was 9-0 on the substance.

            The comments of Alito and Thomas were procedural in nature and they reaffirmed that they would NOT grant the relief requested.

            “Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The SCOTUS ruling is a lie?

            Uh, no. I am not saying that the ruling is a lie. How can a ruling be a lie?
            I suppose you are referring to their not mentioning Trump in their ruling?
            If so, I can only conclude that $20,000 a day does not buy you the best lawyers that money can afford. Maybe Trump’s horrible suffering from all the illegality was not made clear in a legally tenable way?

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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