[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Texas v. Pennsylvania, DISMISSED Lack of Standing Source: SCOTUS URL Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf Published: Dec 11, 2020 Author: SCOTUS Post Date: 2020-12-11 18:50:14 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 3581 Comments: 16 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S. 155) FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. 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.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. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5. #5. To: nolu chan (#0) So, it's punted back to the states? WWG1WWA  posted on  2020-12-11   23:21:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 5. #10. To: WWG1WWA (#5) So, it's punted back to the states? No. This was the states held to lack standing in the attempt to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Court to sue other states about how other states conducted elections in those states. Basically, it is back to Trump as President, filing in a state court or in a federal District court, and reaching Scotus only on appellate jurisdiction. A candidate can show a particularized injury, whereas John Q. Voter cannot. Here is a good explanation from TheDonald (the website, not Trump) https://thedonald.win/p/11R4JGEHkU/on-scotus-from-a-lawyer/ On SCOTUS (from a lawyer) posted 19 hours ago by TheNixonTapes +8257 / -11 Things are not over. But let me put SCOTUS into perspective. Yes, GA, PA, MI, and WI, all violated the Constitution. All serious people concur with that assessment. But standing, objectively, was going to be difficult to assert. Texas did make a pretty creative argument, to be sure. Standing was sort of 50-50 given there is literally no precedent for this type of suit. We must commend those who stood with us, even against the odds. Everyone else, fuck 'em. =========================================================== Apart from the Texas suit, you must keep in mind all election-related lawsuits can be distinguished by the the stage during the election period they are brought, the parties bringing them, and the court in which they are brought. There are three defined stages to this fight: (A) pre-election litigation; (B) post-election, pre-certification litigation; and (C) post-election, post-certification litigation. The parties relevant for our purposes are (1) POTUS in his personal capacity/Trump campaign and (2) all other third parties (e.g., state-level GOP, private citizens, such as Sidney P and L. Wood and their plaintiffs, etc.). The courts are obviously distinguished between State (S) and Federal (F). [I will occasionally combine these alphanumeric references to discuss particular litigation strategies. For example, a reference to an (A-1-F) lawsuit would reference a pre-election lawsuit (A) brought by POTUS (1) in Federal court (F).] Most of the attention-grabbing litigation has been post-election, pre-certification lawsuits brought by third parties in Federal court (B-2-F). From a strategy standpoint, these suits puzzled me. First, Federal court was always less desirable of a venue than State court, because Federal courts almost never intervene in post-election matters. (The only exception to that general rule is an appeal from a state court of last resort to SCOTUS, such as Bush v. Gore.) Second, these (B-2-F) lawsuits sought to enjoin certification of the state election results. I am unaware of any court ever granting this type of relief. The reason no such relief has ever been granted is because the laws of almost every state require certification of results before one can file an election contest in court. (Some states also require certification as a condition precedent to requesting a recount and/or for an automatic recount to occur.) While POTUS did attempt to stop PA and MI certifications, several factors diminished the feasibility of those suits as time progressed, a subject which I do not discuss here. The key lawsuits to watch have always been the election contests. First, an election contest was how Bush v. Gore got to SCOTUS, which demonstrates how these types of lawsuits present a more plausible path to SCOTUS review. Second, standing is almost never a problem, because most state statutes only permit the candidates to bring election contests. The candidate always meets the three key requirements of standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability). Third, election contests must be brought in state court. Another issue with Federal court is that many of the arguments in the post-election lawsuits have focused on violations of state law. Federal courts do not interpret state law, cannot be called upon to enforce state law, and do not remedy violations of state law. The only time a Federal court examines a state law is when the court is examining whether the state law violates the Federal constitution. Fourth, and this is the good part, POTUS has at least four active election contests that have been filed sort of under the radar: -There is one in Wisconsin (10 EV), which the Wisconsin supreme court is set to hear tomorrow. -There is one in Georgia (16 EV), which has a better chance of success than Sidney P or Lin Wood's suits, precisely because POTUS is a party to this suit, suing in his personal capacity. -There is one in Nevada (6 EV), which the NV supreme court rejected, making it now prime for appeal to the SCOTUS. -There is another one in Arizona (11 EV), which the AZ supreme court rejected, and which AZ GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward said they were appealing to SCOTUS. =========================================================== I would be lying to you all if I said this was not an uphill battle. It always has been. And I am always cognizant of us not turning into the "here's how Bernie can still win" type of people from 2016. But objectively speaking, it is still not over. And I will say... WE DESERVE OUR DAY IN COURT GODDAMMIT! nolu chan  posted on  2020-12-12 15:26:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com