@Dedkraken your half the states on each side?? unclear four states responded by 3:00 PM or intervened-- watching Crowder earlier interview with TX AG -- Crowder guessed 4-10 states would "intervene" which means they would have more skin in the game as part of the suit

Listening to Robert Barnes and so far sounds like the adds are amici briefs.
The intervene is joining the suit.

@txgho yeah, the interview I am watching (done earlier today on Crowderbits with TX AG) says the Amici (sp?) briefs are filed as friends of the court, they are up to 18 as AZ joined in today I think -- "Intervening" is actually joining the lawsuit. I was a little deflated cause I had yesterday that the 17 states filing the Amici (sp?) briefs meant the states were actually joining. Oh well going back to finish listening to Crowder -- he is funny, in my opinion.

i think a few states actually intervened

18 or something signed on Texas. DC plus 20 signed for PA and gang. The 4 states accused put their own comments.

4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

can mean something...

PA is probably enough to slap it down. Hopefully Trump coughs up his quid pro quo pardon

The DC amici plus 22 other states and territories filing in the same document all side in favor of rejecting the case. They all follow party lines in this matter, so why should SCOTUS get involved with a political matter when there are no federal or US constitutional issues here?

They didnt all follow party lines. TX went after their own

Yo yo yo good people

looks like luisiana utah missisipi, arkansas, missouri and SC joined the lawsuit

I misspoke, they fall across the winner/loser of presidential election results they have already certified

Utahn here, the GOP governor is denouncing the AG that joined as amici.

I thought a few GOP with scruples would have sided with states rights. I guess those are the ones that sat out 🤔

so does anyone know how many states INTERVENED, ie joined TX in lawsuit?

23 states and 17 political members are joining from penn.suing their gov.was last i heard at 5pm ct

I sure miss our guy tonight!

Looks like 1... Missouri

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

@TaLoN132 Thank you!!

Do not forget the never trumpers are showing their asses and that includes most of congressional cauci and other elected/appointed.
Erick Erickson is one that stands out in Ga.

Today was the deadline for defendant states to respond to SCOTUS.
With the weight of all the states either as 'friends' of the court or applying to intervene (Add us to the suit as co-plaintiffs) SCOTUS has been hesitant on other suits but this one is different
1 It is a Direct State v State suit
2 It covers multiple defendants so SCOTUS avoids piecemeal suits looking to 'overturn redults...too hot a potato
3 The remedy is ALREADY prescribed in constitution so they just answer yes no
4 The remedy prescribed is send it back to State Legilatures and its their call.
5 Even if they don't want to 'floor the results they could just pass on ANY electors..
6 That puts it into Jan 6 in House. GOP has the edge in state delegations
7 BEST OF ALL..Pelosi will have to hammer down the gavel saying "Donald J Trump is elected President"
That is the sweetest revenge...she can't tear up those papers 😉

For those hoping that SCOTUS will take action even if they find in favor of the plaintiff's, the PA response made a compelling argument using the ruling in South Carolina earlier this year:

*"The Court recently recognized the primacy of voters’ reliance interests in Andino v. Middleton, 20A55 (Oct.5, 2020). There, a South Carolina District Court order (entered on September 18, 2020), enjoined that state’s witness requirement for absentee ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic. On October 5, this Court stayed the District Court’s decision,thus reinstating the witness requirement. Recognizing that South Carolina voters submitted ballots without witnesses in the timeframe between the District Court’s September 18 injunction and this Court’s October 5 stay, however, this Court specified that “any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement.” Andino v. Middleton,2020 WL 5887393 *1 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020).

This Court thus acknowledged that **voters should not be punished for relying upon the rules in place when they voted**. Similar reliance interests here compel this Court to maintain the status quo for Pennsylvania voters at this late juncture. Overturning Pennsylvania’s election results is contrary to any metric of fairness and would do nothing less than deny the fundamental right to vote to millions of Pennsylvania’s citizens."*

SCOTUS has already indicated that they are not likely to punish the voter for technical mistakes.

To clarify point 5
They could pass on sending ANY ELECTORS because they can't determine truthfulness of counts.. so no one gets 270 and it goes to congress
Sorry for that confusion

You mean truthiness

@PROJECTMAN #7 -- would be the coolest thing EVER!!! @ImNotGas - what is the map you put up?

@Roadtrek Girl, you just advanced to level 2!

Yeah, it's possible, but why risk the riots?

@Imnotgas what is map?]

electoral votes of the lawsuit

lol

A group of GA state Senators DID file amicus with Tx in SCOTUS against their own state😂✌🏻😂✌🏻😂

@Stygian Abyss I hear ya! BUT if this stuff isn't caught now America could be gone! It already seems to be disappearing before us.

@imnotgas thank you

I tried to tell here hours ago. No one believed me

@ImNotGas what do the differnent colors mean -- I am in KY.

America been gone since Trumps sparsely attended inauguration

red joined trump side, blue joined defendants, yellow sued states

I heard PA atate legislatures are planning to file amicus with TX scotus too