14 Dec 20
@Metal-Brain
All well and good except for one pesky fact: there WAS no evidence.
It was basically 9 to ZERO, 2 judges saying they would like to hear the 'evidence' but basically saying it was all bogus anyway.
I suppose it means NOTHING to you that the three judges anointed by Trump agreed with the rest. THOSE FLIPPING TURNCOATS, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.
@sonhouse said"2 judges saying they would like to hear the 'evidence' but basically saying it was all bogus anyway."
@Metal-Brain
All well and good except for one pesky fact: there WAS no evidence.
It was basically 9 to ZERO, 2 judges saying they would like to hear the 'evidence' but basically saying it was all bogus anyway.
I suppose it means NOTHING to you that the three judges anointed by Trump agreed with the rest. THOSE FLIPPING TURNCOATS, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.
The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case. It was rejected on standing.
If they didn't hear it how could they know it is bogus? Are you lying again? I think you are making that up.
What is your source of information?
14 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidTrump, his campaign and his allies have filed something like 50 lawsuits. In none of them, did they present credible evidence of widespread fraud that could have effected the result in any State.
The SCOTUS refuses to hear the evidence. If the SCOTUS will not consider evidence if Texas is the plaintiff how is the Trump legal team supposed to get them to hear the evidence?
14 Dec 20
@no1marauder saidThe SCOTUS didn't listen to any evidence. I don't think this SCOTUS case had much to do with fraud. It is about whether or not states violated the US constitution. The claim is certain states violated their own election laws.
Trump, his campaign and his allies have filed something like 50 lawsuits. In none of them, did they present credible evidence of widespread fraud that could have effected the result in any State.
I don't see why Texas had to be involved. Why couldn't Trump file the lawsuit himself?
@metal-brain saidThe Supreme Court doesn't listen to evidence. That's not the way appellate courts work. The Supreme Court reviews the evidence and other record that was presented to the lower court(s) and makes a determination as to whether the lower courts properly applied the law.
The SCOTUS didn't listen to any evidence. I don't think this SCOTUS case had much to do with fraud. It is about whether or not states violated the US constitution. The claim is certain states violated their own election laws.
I don't see why Texas had to be involved. Why couldn't Trump file the lawsuit himself?
Except in rare cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, you don't present new evidence to the Supreme Court.
@metal-brain saidIncidentally, the very idea that Texas would have standing to challenge Pennsylvania's application of Pennsylvania is dangerous and antithetical to the federalism principles correctly championed by conservatives.
The SCOTUS didn't listen to any evidence. I don't think this SCOTUS case had much to do with fraud. It is about whether or not states violated the US constitution. The claim is certain states violated their own election laws.
I don't see why Texas had to be involved. Why couldn't Trump file the lawsuit himself?
That the Supreme Court didn't allow standing is best for conservatives (even Trumpers) in the long term.
@metal-brain saidThe "advantage" that Texas filing the suit gave was that suits between the States go right to the SCOTUS i.e. "original jurisdiction". Trump and his allies have filed dozens of suits in the lower federal courts and in various State courts, all of which were shot down, often by Judges Trump appointed: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-most-remarkable-rebukes-of-trumps-legal-case-from-the-judges-he-hand-picked/ar-BB1bUSsI
The SCOTUS didn't listen to any evidence. I don't think this SCOTUS case had much to do with fraud. It is about whether or not states violated the US constitution. The claim is certain states violated their own election laws.
I don't see why Texas had to be involved. Why couldn't Trump file the lawsuit himself?
EDIT: Trump's campaign filed a new one in New Mexico this morning. https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423935-trumpnmsuit121420
14 Dec 20
@no1marauder saidOh, wow. I didn't even notice that.
The "advantage" that Texas filing the suit gave was that suits between the States go right to the SCOTUS i.e. "original jurisdiction".
Well, shows you how closely I've been following this clown show.
@sh76 saidHold on. The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case. It was rejected on standing. You said the Supreme Court reviews the evidence and other record that was presented to the lower court(s) and makes a determination as to whether the lower courts properly applied the law.
The Supreme Court doesn't listen to evidence. That's not the way appellate courts work. The Supreme Court reviews the evidence and other record that was presented to the lower court(s) and makes a determination as to whether the lower courts properly applied the law.
Except in rare cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, you don't present new evidence to the Supreme Court.
If the case wasn’t rejected on the merits of the case why are you suggesting it was? Either they looked at evidence or they didn't. Which is it? Be honest.
15 Dec 20
@sh76 saidI must admit, when I first heard the case was being considered by the SCOTUS the first thing I thought was "why would Texas have an interest in what happens in other states?"
Incidentally, the very idea that Texas would have standing to challenge Pennsylvania's application of Pennsylvania is dangerous and antithetical to the federalism principles correctly championed by conservatives.
That the Supreme Court didn't allow standing is best for conservatives (even Trumpers) in the long term.
I don't have a problem with that ruling as long as there is another way to have the case heard by the SCOTUS before legal options become impractical because of time limitations.
Is that possible?
15 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidStanding is part of what the Supreme Court always can review. Standing is not an evidentiary issue. It's an issue of law. Of course the record has some impact because facts are needed to establish standing.
Hold on. The case wasn’t rejected on the merits the case. It was rejected on standing. You said the Supreme Court reviews the evidence and other record that was presented to the lower court(s) and makes a determination as to whether the lower courts properly applied the law.
If the case wasn’t rejected on the merits of the case why are you suggesting it was? Either they looked at evidence or they didn't. Which is it? Be honest.
But in any case, I retract what I said before about SCOTUS review. That's true in general, but if this was a case of original jurisdiction (no1 pointed this out above; I hadn't realized it as I just haven't been paying that much attention), then the Court would be empowered to hear new evidence.
15 Dec 20
@metal-brain saidThe lawsuits in other courts around the country could have been and in some cases were appealed to the Supreme Court.
I must admit, when I first heard the case was being considered by the SCOTUS the first thing I thought was "why would Texas have an interest in what happens in other states?"
I don't have a problem with that ruling as long as there is another way to have the case heard by the SCOTUS before legal options become impractical because of time limitations.
Is that possible?
15 Dec 20
@sh76 saidYou didn't answer my question.
Standing is part of what the Supreme Court always can review. Standing is not an evidentiary issue. It's an issue of law. Of course the record has some impact because facts are needed to establish standing.
But in any case, I retract what I said before about SCOTUS review. That's true in general, but if this was a case of original jurisdiction (no1 pointed this out above; I h ...[text shortened]... st haven't been paying that much attention), then the Court would be empowered to hear new evidence.
I don't have a problem with that ruling as long as there is another way to have the case heard by the SCOTUS before legal options become impractical because of time limitations.
Is that possible? If not, that is very wrong. It must at least be possible. Isn't that obvious to the politically unbiased?