Message from @Ehzek
Discord ID: 788204389591547904
Not the conservatives anyways
They don't NEED TO. They need to do their damn jobs
Are part of SCOTUS's job is arbitration between states. Which would have been the Texas suit, but they refused to hear it because they don't want to become "political".
Spineless cowards the lot of them. ACB and Kavanaugh.
They said TX doesn't have "standing" (at that time)... suit can and is being made by those with standing
Texas DOES have standing tho
Its a conflict between states, with Texas alleging a violation of the Constitution between states
I agree with you... just pointing out that was the only basis for their dismissal. But it's easy enough to get around that
That's exactly SCOTUS's job to arbitrate. And they pussied out.
I know. It should have been the most clear-cut case, too
even the 4 states haven't been able to deny they violated their constitutions
My problem is if they pussied out on that, odds of them finding in favor of us are slim to none.
Or even taking any case related to the election
if they are presented with the case in good standing, they will have to be extremely careful not to rule that the constitution is a document that can be violated
the Constitution is the sole basis for the authority of the government and the legal system (including SCOTUS). Rule that it can be blatantly violated and the door is open for whatever comes next
(which would likely be Texas seceding and taking most of the states with them to form a new union, in my opinion)
No Texas didn't have standing
They worded it poorly
You are conflating what you think is happening and not taking the actual suit into account
Fuck Scotus
Just a bunch of retards screeching about it
That JUST learned a short definition
Frankly, we didn't have standing. Though I remember Alito and Thomas saying "So this is what you needed to do." Granted, I'm an idiot who doesn't understand legalese
From what I understand, a state can't sue on behalf of other states, only on behalf of the government... right?
Cheers gents
It depends on the argument
I'm pretty sure you could word it to have standing
But its certain that they didnt
they might have standing after EC tabulation, I'm not sure
Not 100% sure how fucking with an election doesn't give another state standing, buuut I ain't a lawyer.
And the SCOTUS can't give them a mulligan
Its in the wording
They likely didn't explain how it effected them and whether or not that made them directly responsible for the grievance
I think they'll have a much better case later if all else fails... they'll have standing when they can show damage
Well now MI GOP has a case against the SOS and election officials.
With the stuff in motion now if its not done by then its likely done
MI "certified" fraudulent results and they knew it
And that's the first major domino.
Thought it would be PA, but I'm not complaining