Donner, I do agree with your reply somewhat, but Oklahoma gun laws do not effect other states gun regulations in any way. The Texas case presented does affect every other state in the union.
US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed
- Thread starter OKC03Cobra
- Start Date
you may think that but that doesn’t mean it’d stop states from bringing suit. We’ve already seen cities claim that loose gun laws in southern states are letting guns flow into cities like Chicago. Or perhaps claims about environmental policies affect climate change. Or again, a blue state suing a red state over redistricting because of the threat to the balance of power in the house.
Texas is asking the court to invalidate elections in other states. That is not something the court will take lightly is my point. Some of the justices may want to help trump, but they are smart people and know their actions will have rippling effects.
I’m not saying these things will happen, specifically, just that the justices are likely aware of the politics around the case as well as what a decision like this could mean for the court going forward.
Last edited:
Something is happening. You should think of the Supreme Court as that girl in high school that always gave you the blue balls. The Supreme Court doesn't mean to be cruel. That's just the way she is.
Last edited:
17 states (via their Republican Attorneys general and i think one solicitor general) filed a brief in support of Texas, but it may not matter how many states sign on since it will still rest on the legal questions the Texas case raises. The 29 other states could file in support of the four defendant states and it wouldn't change the standing of the case either.
This effort may go somewhere, or it may stop suddenly like the PA rep's case did a few days ago. We will see how fast, or slow, the court moves after it's filing deadline today.
The Kraken failed again last night. This time in Wisconsin. The judge makes some interesting points about the filing that definitely make you wonder what the plaintiffs were thinking.
At one point, the judge points out the filing quotes from another case (Swaffer) in support of the plaintiff's position. Only that quote doesn't exist and the case it pointed to didn't deal with electors at all.
"And the plaintiff seems to have made up the “quote” in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer"... "The court has read page 4 of Swaffer—a decision by this court’s colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller—three times and cannot find these words."
And in another section regarding the request to stop the counting and prohibit certification... 'The plaintiff asks the court to prohibit from occurring an event that has already occurred. An event that happened the day before he filed this lawsuit and nine days before the court issues this order.'
But perhaps the most crazy thing was when Powell told the court it wanted to keep the name of it's star witness secret, even from the defense. But, in filing their PDF, they failed to fully redact the person's name...
It's kindof like elephant hunting with a flyswatter.
to which aspect of this process are you referring?
Awesome info capt' obviouse lol
Yeah, that sounds like clown show level stuff. WTF is going on?
Similar threads
