The Swamp

I hope Trump ends this at 1-for-69 in court. That will be nice.

I'm liking this Lloyd Austin pick. But then again, I'd probably like any retired general for SecDef.

Texas is suing Pa, Wisky, Michigan, and Georgia

OK, I have to admit that this was a clever way to get the entire election to the Supreme Court. I did not see that coming.

But no, the Supreme Court is not going to invalidate the repeatedly-confirmed results of the elections in four states.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:21 pm I'm liking this Lloyd Austin pick. But then again, I'd probably like any retired general for SecDef.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:38 pm OK, I have to admit that this was a clever way to get the entire election to the Supreme Court. I did not see that coming.

But no, the Supreme Court is not going to invalidate the repeatedly-confirmed results of the elections in four states.

I’m still going to be on pins and needles until this passes. I do not trust Barrett, Alito, or Kavanaugh.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:39 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:38 pm OK, I have to admit that this was a clever way to get the entire election to the Supreme Court. I did not see that coming.

But no, the Supreme Court is not going to invalidate the repeatedly-confirmed results of the elections in four states.

I’m still going to be on pins and needles until this passes. I do not trust Barrett, Alito, or Kavanaugh.

This will go like the Nebraska/Oklahoma weed case against CO. Alito and Thomas will agree to hear it. The others won't and that will end it.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:16 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:21 pm I'm liking this Lloyd Austin pick. But then again, I'd probably like any retired general for SecDef.

Hysterics aside, this objection makes a lot of sense, at least in the abstract. I can see a couple of possible justifications - one may be that the generals who are there now will be more likely to listen carefully to what Austin says versus what a Democratic civilian would say, the other would be the importance of appointing a Black man to this position.

But no, Joe Biden is not turning the US into a military dictatorship by appointing a general who retired four years ago instead of seven years ago.

Hilarious to me that anyone is still acting like this wasn't a done deal weeks ago.

Also, please point me to the dozens of articles of voters having guns waved in their face and being prevented from voting.

I could go on, but the hair on fire prognostication got pretty tired in August.

It would be hilarious of some blue states got together and sued Texas for bad bbq or dumb hats or whatever.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:55 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:16 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:21 pm I'm liking this Lloyd Austin pick. But then again, I'd probably like any retired general for SecDef.

Hysterics aside, this objection makes a lot of sense, at least in the abstract. I can see a couple of possible justifications - one may be that the generals who are there now will be more likely to listen carefully to what Austin says versus what a Democratic civilian would say, the other would be the importance of appointing a Black man to this position.

But no, Joe Biden is not turning the US into a military dictatorship by appointing a general who retired four years ago instead of seven years ago.

Yea, from what I could tell Austin seems like a great choice. And the waiver will pass just like it did with Mattis. I'm hoping that it'll give stability to the military and the next SecDef can be straight civilian with corporate ties instead of a military one.

Who would be the preferred nominee if Austin's ties to defense firms is an issue?

The republican 'ethical' objections at confirmation hearings are just going to be straight up kabuki, naturally.

Giff wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 3:08 pm Who would be the preferred nominee if Austin's ties to defense firms is an issue?

Michele Flournoy seemed to fit the bill because of her accolades and Hillary would've chosen her too. But she too had ties to Booz Allen Hamilton. And Ro Kanna was no fan:



The Settle for Biden people wanted Barbara Lee. And that seemed to be the only place I could find an actual name that I could see tied to progressives. I'm googling, but I'm coming up empty. There are probably other names, but I can't find them.

psunate77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:39 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:38 pm OK, I have to admit that this was a clever way to get the entire election to the Supreme Court. I did not see that coming.

But no, the Supreme Court is not going to invalidate the repeatedly-confirmed results of the elections in four states.

I’m still going to be on pins and needles until this passes. I do not trust Barrett, Alito, or Kavanaugh.

And huge shock, Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

You are 100% right not to trust the current Court, but there is no vehicle for them to decide the election. There needs to be some sort of dispute of law for the Court to decide, and there just isn't any. The Court has no way to reach in, they can't just waive their wand and decide the results of the election, someone needs a legitimate question of law, and they must have standing to get in front of the Court to make their claim. The reason Trump's lawyers are filing completely nonsensical claims and then refusing to show evidence to back their claims is because they have no valid claims. It's over. Trump has no legal recourse.

supreme court rejects bid.

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:59 pm supreme court rejects bid.

Fuck Vince Carter

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:00 pm Jenna Ellis Has Covid

One of these fuckers really needs to kick it. (Otherwise I'm really going to start to think they have access to some superior therapeutics that are hush hush)

Pruitt wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:00 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:59 pm supreme court rejects bid.

Fuck Vince Carter

That was just for you!

Wasn't it already disclosed that Christie had access to drugs most everyone else doesn't?

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:58 pm

psunate77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:39 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:38 pm OK, I have to admit that this was a clever way to get the entire election to the Supreme Court. I did not see that coming.

But no, the Supreme Court is not going to invalidate the repeatedly-confirmed results of the elections in four states.

I’m still going to be on pins and needles until this passes. I do not trust Barrett, Alito, or Kavanaugh.

And huge shock, Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

You are 100% right not to trust the current Court, but there is no vehicle for them to decide the election. There needs to be some sort of dispute of law for the Court to decide, and there just isn't any. The Court has no way to reach in, they can't just waive their wand and decide the results of the election, someone needs a legitimate question of law, and they must have standing to get in front of the Court to make their claim. The reason Trump's lawyers are filing completely nonsensical claims and then refusing to show evidence to back their claims is because they have no valid claims. It's over. Trump has no legal recourse.

On to the Intergalactic Court it is

Federal judges, even the SCOTUS justices, hate opening the door to frivolous lawsuits more than they hate socialism. Hate to break it to you guys.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:58 pm

psunate77 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 1:39 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:38 pm OK, I have to admit that this was a clever way to get the entire election to the Supreme Court. I did not see that coming.

But no, the Supreme Court is not going to invalidate the repeatedly-confirmed results of the elections in four states.

I’m still going to be on pins and needles until this passes. I do not trust Barrett, Alito, or Kavanaugh.

And huge shock, Supreme Court declines to hear the case.

You are 100% right not to trust the current Court, but there is no vehicle for them to decide the election. There needs to be some sort of dispute of law for the Court to decide, and there just isn't any. The Court has no way to reach in, they can't just waive their wand and decide the results of the election, someone needs a legitimate question of law, and they must have standing to get in front of the Court to make their claim. The reason Trump's lawyers are filing completely nonsensical claims and then refusing to show evidence to back their claims is because they have no valid claims. It's over. Trump has no legal recourse.

Did the Supreme Court refuse to hear the case filed by Texas? Or an appeal of a Third Circuit ruling dealing with the Pennsylvania mail-in voting law.

Theoretically, that Texas proceeding could be such a vehicle to raise the claims, since the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over claims between the states. I have no idea whether Texas would have standing, though, or how standing even works when it's one state suing another under the Court's original jurisdiction. I guess it'd be the same, since it's all based on the same language from Article III.

But the fact that no one filed a dissent or even a concurrence to the order on the Third Circuit case makes me think the Court will either not allow the Texas case to proceed (if they have that option), or will do nothing on it and then dismiss it as moot. (Texas has admitted that once the electors cast their votes next Monday, it's over. They are asking the Court to postpone that Monday deadline.)

The legal analysis I saw said the Court very rarely takes up any cases where one state sues another (for mostly logical reasons -- they don't want Wisconsin trying to set oil policy in Texas or Texas setting salmon policy in Alaska, etc.)

They apparently take an average of less than one case per year and didn't even take the case where NE/OK sued CO over its marijuana policy even though it was expected they might at least hear that case.

The doc for the Texas case was just filed and looks like Louisiana and Alabama are joining Texas in the suit.

The Court has asked the target states to respond by tomorrow.

That doesn’t mean anything regarding the outcome, but it hardly seems fair to expect quality briefing on obscure Supreme Court procedures in a day.

Is a wanking motion a legal response?

I guess this is probably an old joke by now, but I saw a guy wearing this shirt, today. Cracked me up.

I like the message of sending a gay dude to China. Russia would be good too frankly.

Some good videos explaining why the TX lawsuit doesn't stand a chance:


First from Republican Election Law expert Ben Ginsburg :





And Dem Election Law expert Marc Elias:




TL/DW: The suit is completely without merit and likely without standing. Biggest point is that Conservative Justices are all about States Rights, and nothing is a bigger hit to states rights than allowing a state to sue other states for how they decide to run their elections. Allowing this case to move forward, even if they decide against Texas (and Trump), opens the door for states to sue to prevent other states from acting within their authority and discretion. It's opening an enormous can of worms and going against the most firmly held belief by Federalist Society Justices.

Marc Elias mentioned the possibility that the TX AG is fishing for a pardon, so I listened to Rachel Maddow explain. Holy shit. The Texas AG is currently indicted for a second time for violating federal securities laws. His crime carries a potential 99 year sentence. 7 Deputy AGs signed a letter alleging the AG of committing crimes involving abuse of power and soliciting bribes to help financially benefit some of his key campaign donors.

FUCK..

Hunter Biden now officially under Investigation.

Trump can execute Hunter Biden for all I care. It's not going to make him President on Jan. 21.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:14 pm Trump can execute Hunter Biden for all I care. It's not going to make him President on Jan. 21.

Amen to that.

In any list of slimy scions of the last few years, and I'll include scions by marriage, I say no way he's worse than #3 on the list. Maybe as low as #5.

But he will be a GOP talking point for the next 4 years no matter what he does.

Going forward, it might be best for the country and the mental health of all non-Trumpites to completely ignore what is being said on the right.

The narrative from liberal media outlets (the traditional, non-"progressive" type) was that we had to try to understand the emotions and the motives of the Trump supporters. Clearly after 4 years of their bilious, selfish, racist spewings it's time to just say FUCK YOU. Hell, they'd say worse to you.

I'm on the "Fuck Trump, fuck his kids, fuck your mother and fuck your feelings, snowflake" train with Trumpers.

There's legitimately no reasoning with them and all of their debates are bad faith with the intent to trigger you and then say "jeez can't you take a joke?" when all is said and done.

I'll just jump to the insults and end it before they keep it going.

I got accused of wanting a participation trophy because I can't accept trump's victory. Still chewing on that one.