Activity

I watched 2008 as a friend tried to establish his status as a natural born citizen to eventually demonstrate that Obama was NOT one and repeatedly the courts used “no standing” as the excuse. I am certainly not betting against you on this one, Dr. Farrell (sadly).

Up to 17 states (1/3) have now joined TX in this law suit. As Bongino shows, it not only suggests harm to voters who thought they were voting in a fair election but that the harm will also be if the Vice President is selected through unConstitutional means who could break a tie in the Senate. Pretty smart.

… a much more simple prediction … NOTHING will come of any of this RIGmarole.

Affirmation of what I suspected 2 weeks ago! Sad to say, but it appears many people are going to be ‘shocked’ at the abandonment of all reason, and justice for all.

Just suppose for a moment that CHAOS is the objective in this 2020 circus.
Half the country right now KNOWS the election was rigged and that the election process is a complete scam. What if SCOTUS hears and decides in Texas’ favor? And the election is reversed on Constitutional grounds?
The half that knows that elections are rigged will still believe that, but will thank the Court for making things right.
BUT now the other half of the country that thought the election was free and fair will believe they’ve been robbed and that voting makes no difference.
Everyone will have lost faith in the process and there can be no reconciliation.
Chaos accomplished.
Could happen. Just sayin’…

from the potus filing:
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States,
respectfully seeks leave to intervene in the pending
original jurisdiction matter of State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., No. 22O155 (filed
Dec. 7, 2020).
Plaintiff in Intervention seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint in Intervention against
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of
Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (“Defendant
States”), challenging their administration of the 2020
presidential election.
There is no Eleventh Amendment bar to the intervention by a private party whose rights are affected
by an original action between States. See, Maryland
v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 745, fn. 21 (1981) (“[I]t is
not unusual to permit intervention of private parties
in original actions”); Arizona v. California, 460 U.S.
605, 614 ([O]ur judicial power over the controversy is
not enlarged by granting leave to intervene, and the
States’ sovereign immunity, protected by the Eleventh
Amendment, is not compromised”). See also, Texas v.
Louisiana, 416 U.S. 965 (1974) (city in Texas permitted to intervene); Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546
(1963) (state agencies); Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S.
574, 581 (1922) (noting that numerous parties intervened to make claims to the property over which the
Court had taken control and that “ancillary” jurisdiction over such claims was proper “although independent suits to enforce the claims could not be entertained
in that court”).
As set forth in the accompanying brief and Complaint in Intervention, election officials in each of the
Defendant States altered or otherwise failed to enforce state election laws in the conduct of the 2020
5
election. The violations of state election law, which is
the “manner” the Legislatures of the States have established for choosing presidential electors, violates
the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution and thus
this matter arises under federal law. See Bush v Gore,
531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from
the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential
electors presents a federal constitutional question”)
(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Moreover, as explained
more fully in the complaint filed by Texas, the number
of ballots affected by illegal conduct of state elections
officials greatly exceeds the current margin between
Plaintiff in Intervention and his opponent in the election for the Office of President in each of the respective Defendant States, and the four Defendant States
collectively have a sufficient number of electoral votes
to affect the result of the vote in the Electoral College
for the Office of President. Proposed Plaintiff in Intervention therefore clearly has a stake in the outcome of this litigation.

The “dismissed for lack of standing” maneuver was the first thing that came to my mind too. I actually think the legal argument that a state as such has been harmed by voting fraud committed in other states is kind of a stretch. It’s individual voters who have been harmed. You’d think they could bring class-action suits in the states where fraud occurred, though that probably couldn’t be done fast enough to affect who becomes president in January.

I remember a professor in a paralegal course once told the class, when discussing a Constitutional question, “The answer is five.” In other words, the answer is whatever five Supreme Court justices say it is, regardless of what the law says. The outcome of this case will depend on the political outcome a majority of Court wants (or has been coerced into wanting), the image of itself the Court wants to project, and/or some precedent it does or doesn’t want to set. It will have nothing to do with who actually has legal standing.

Perilous times, no matter which way they rule. I certainly hope you are wrong, though, Joseph.

Posted my view of this situation couple of days ago and it disappeared. Of course, I did reference McC*rth*, D*w*, R**s*v*lt. I hate when that happens

a more simple prediction … and the people will see that the United States is now a dual state (actually has been for quite some time) and the American Justice System will be “coordinated” with the goals of the Democratic Party. Rather than precedent the courts will work according to “gesundes Volksempfinden”. The Supreme Court will henceforth be called the “Peoples Court” and its Chief Justice will be a clone of Roland Freisler.