Gyroscopic Investing

Biden won Texas too..but Trump and the Republicans cheated. Total fraud.

Will this lawsuit be reported on tonight’s NBCABCCBS News?
Despite the obvious news value, I’m betting not.

Here's the docket for the Texas lawsuit:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... 2o155.html

And here's their motion, slated for a response by Thursday:
"Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf

Admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but this is interesting for more than one reason.

First, one state is suing four other states for allegedly violating Federal law. Are states in the position of policing each other regarding Federal law? How can a state have standing to challenge other states' election procedures and voting results?

Second, and more interesting, this case is being filed directly with the US Supreme Court. I did not know SCOTUS could act as a trial court. I always thought of SCOTUS as an appellate court that only heard cases that had worked their way through lower court systems whether state or Federal circuit.

Well it will be interesting to see what happens. Unprecedented is certainly the new normal.

glennds wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:17 pm Admittedly I'm not a lawyer, but this is interesting for more than one reason.

First, one state is suing four other states for allegedly violating Federal law. Are states in the position of policing each other regarding Federal law? How can a state have standing to challenge other states' election procedures and voting results?

Second, and more interesting, this case is being filed directly with the US Supreme Court. I did not know SCOTUS could act as a trial court. I always thought of SCOTUS as an appellate court that only heard cases that had worked their way through lower court systems whether state or Federal circuit.

Well it will be interesting to see what happens. Unprecedented is certainly the new normal.

One of the few times that a case can go directly to the Supreme Court is if one state is suing another. That is the only remedy that states have. So, that aspect is completely legitimate.

The lawsuit argues that the opposing state(s) violated their own constitution - which is a violation of the Federal constitution - and subsequently damaged the other states.

It will be interesting to see where this falls out. My personal opinion is that the lawsuit has merits, but that it will be thrown out on technical grounds - because the repercussions would be a shit storm.

Too bad I'm always in favor of a shit storm.

Looks like Louisiana has joined Texas as a plaintiff.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:52 pm

One of the few times that a case can go directly to the Supreme Court is if one state is suing another. That is the only remedy that states have. So, that aspect is completely legitimate.

The lawsuit argues that the opposing state(s) violated their own constitution - which is a violation of the Federal constitution - and subsequently damaged the other states.

Haven't the issues already been litigated within the court systems of each of the states Texas is suing?

The more I look at this Texas lawsuit, the more it looks like a publicity stunt.

Plus what about the argument of all the Constitutionalists around here, the argument that says citizens don't have a right to vote for president, the presidential election is based on electors in the electoral college and in that regard State legislatures can do whatever they want? So if one subscribes to this belief, then the states Texas is suing haven't done anything wrong yet because the electoral vote hasn't even happened, and when it does, if state legislatures can do what they want, Texas has nothing to say about it.

It's all weird and to me it looks like pretty much everyone is picking their favorite outcome and then backwards interpreting the laws and reality to support it.

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:58 am

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:52 pm

One of the few times that a case can go directly to the Supreme Court is if one state is suing another. That is the only remedy that states have. So, that aspect is completely legitimate.

The lawsuit argues that the opposing state(s) violated their own constitution - which is a violation of the Federal constitution - and subsequently damaged the other states.

Haven't the issues already been litigated within the court systems of each of the states Texas is suing?

The more I look at this Texas lawsuit, the more it looks like a publicity stunt.

Plus what about the argument of all the Constitutionalists around here, the argument that says citizens don't have a right to vote for president, the presidential election is based on electors in the electoral college and in that regard State legislatures can do whatever they want? So if one subscribes to this belief, then the states Texas is suing haven't done anything wrong yet because the electoral vote hasn't even happened, and when it does, if state legislatures can do what they want, Texas has nothing to say about it.

It's all weird and to me it looks like pretty much everyone is picking their favorite outcome and then backwards interpreting the laws and reality to support it.

In other words, human nature in action?

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:00 am

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:58 am

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:52 pm

One of the few times that a case can go directly to the Supreme Court is if one state is suing another. That is the only remedy that states have. So, that aspect is completely legitimate.

The lawsuit argues that the opposing state(s) violated their own constitution - which is a violation of the Federal constitution - and subsequently damaged the other states.

Haven't the issues already been litigated within the court systems of each of the states Texas is suing?

The more I look at this Texas lawsuit, the more it looks like a publicity stunt.

Plus what about the argument of all the Constitutionalists around here, the argument that says citizens don't have a right to vote for president, the presidential election is based on electors in the electoral college and in that regard State legislatures can do whatever they want? So if one subscribes to this belief, then the states Texas is suing haven't done anything wrong yet because the electoral vote hasn't even happened, and when it does, if state legislatures can do what they want, Texas has nothing to say about it.

It's all weird and to me it looks like pretty much everyone is picking their favorite outcome and then backwards interpreting the laws and reality to support it.

In other words, human nature in action?

Vinny

Or even simpler - hypocrisy

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:04 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:00 am

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 7:58 am

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:52 pm

One of the few times that a case can go directly to the Supreme Court is if one state is suing another. That is the only remedy that states have. So, that aspect is completely legitimate.

The lawsuit argues that the opposing state(s) violated their own constitution - which is a violation of the Federal constitution - and subsequently damaged the other states.

Haven't the issues already been litigated within the court systems of each of the states Texas is suing?

The more I look at this Texas lawsuit, the more it looks like a publicity stunt.

Plus what about the argument of all the Constitutionalists around here, the argument that says citizens don't have a right to vote for president, the presidential election is based on electors in the electoral college and in that regard State legislatures can do whatever they want? So if one subscribes to this belief, then the states Texas is suing haven't done anything wrong yet because the electoral vote hasn't even happened, and when it does, if state legislatures can do what they want, Texas has nothing to say about it.

It's all weird and to me it looks like pretty much everyone is picking their favorite outcome and then backwards interpreting the laws and reality to support it.

In other words, human nature in action?

Vinny

Or even simpler - hypocrisy

Which IS one of the components of human nature. No matter how strongly each of us states our principles each of us are inconsistent in some of them.

Vinny

Trump and the GOP aren’t suing simply because they didn’t like the election’s outcome.

There are hundreds of sworn affidavits by people who witnessed what they believe to be election shenanigans, including the bullying of poll watchers. There are also many irregularities in the voting data that are highly suspicious and suggest targeted fraud.

Even more significant, though, is the fact that months before the general election, Trump and other GOP politicians were warning about the likelihood of massive fraud as a result of the universal mail-in ballots and the relaxed election security rules in some states.

So why didn’t they sue back then, months before the election? As I’ve learned only in the aftermath of this election clusterfuck, it’s because you generally need standing in order to bring a case that has any chance of being heard. And the plaintiffs had no standing until the election was held and the predictable effects of the universal mail-in ballots were observed.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:43 am Trump and the GOP aren’t suing simply because they didn’t like the election’s outcome.

There are hundreds of sworn affidavits by people who witnessed what they believe to be election shenanigans, including the bullying of poll watchers. There are also many irregularities in the voting data that are highly suspicious and suggest targeted fraud.

Even more significant, though, is the fact that months before the general election, Trump and other GOP politicians were warning about the likelihood of massive fraud as a result of the universal mail-in ballots and the relaxed election security rules in some states.

So why didn’t they sue back then, months before the election? As I’ve learned only in the aftermath of this election clusterfuck, it’s because you generally need standing in order to bring a case that has any chance of being heard. And the plaintiffs had no standing until the election was held and the predictable effects of the universal mail-in ballots were observed.

This is what I love about democracy (or Constitutional republics if you prefer). Everyone gets to have an opinion.
If opinions differ and there is a dispute, we have a sophisticated multi-level Court system to sort it out using rule of law. If an aggrieved party alleges something, he/she gets a day in Court and it is on them to come to the table with evidence and prove it. I think we're seeing the process play out.

If you think the Court system is corrupt, then take your concerns to your elected representatives. Or you have the right to move to another country. If you're willing to do neither, then in Civics class, they would say it's time to sit down and shut up.

The system is being stressed, but it seems to be working as far as I can tell.

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:56 pm If you think the Court system is corrupt, then take your concerns to your elected representatives. Or you have the right to move to another country. If you're willing to do neither, then in Civics class, they would say it's time to sit down and shut up.

That's a solid argument. However, there are a few counterpoints.

- Moving to another country is a good option only if a country exists that is better aligned with your politics than the current one, and if it's not prohibitively difficult to move there. As Tech recently pointed out on one of the libertarian threads, there is currently no simple, fast way to "switch governments" like switching one's insurance company. That's a problem.

- The concept of "elected representatives" in the minds of large portions of the American public is going to change dramatically going forward if the countless accusations of shenanigans in the general election aren't fully investigated and resolved to most Americans' satisfaction. The veil has been lifted. Why should we trust our "elected representatives" if we no longer trust the integrity of our elections?

- If many Americans firmly believe that illegal election law changes and possibly also fraud stole the election and that the political systems within our constitutional republic failed to protect us from it, then they may start to conclude that the Republic has fallen and needs to be either reclaimed or replaced. "Sit down and shut up" is what many disillusioned Americans have resigned themselves to for decades, but things really seem to be approaching a boiling point.

Some levelheaded people think things will just simmer down after this election drama plays itself out, but I have my doubts. Either way the decision goes, it seems like a distinct possibility -- maybe even a likelihood -- that conflict will continue to grow. I hope I'm just being pessimistic.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:16 pm


- The concept of "elected representatives" in the minds of large portions of the American public is going to change dramatically going forward if the countless accusations of shenanigans in the general election aren't fully investigated and resolved to most Americans' satisfaction. The veil has been lifted. Why should we trust our "elected representatives" if we no longer trust the integrity of our elections?

I'd like to know what "satisfaction" would actually mean. For some I have spoken with, it seems to mean the outcome they want regardless of how it is arrived upon

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:16 pm
- If many Americans firmly believe that illegal election law changes and possibly also fraud stole the election and that the political systems within our constitutional republic failed to protect us from it, then they may start to conclude that the Republic has fallen and needs to be either reclaimed or replaced. "Sit down and shut up" is what many disillusioned Americans have resigned themselves to for decades, but things really seem to be approaching a boiling point.

Some levelheaded people think things will just simmer down after this election drama plays itself out, but I have my doubts. Either way the decision goes, it seems like a distinct possibility -- maybe even a likelihood -- that conflict will continue to grow. I hope I'm just being pessimistic.

Well then I'd say you've outlined the road to the third alternative which is a revolution/Civil War.
I'm not sure yet who would be fighting who. I'm not even sure what the specific goals would be because most of the complaints I have heard are very diffuse and broad in nature, and involve broadly labeled groups like Democrats or RINOs, but not specific people (except maybe George Soros). In Georgia right now Republicans are fighting Republicans. At least in the Civil War, the uniforms were clear identifiers.

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:37 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:16 pm


- The concept of "elected representatives" in the minds of large portions of the American public is going to change dramatically going forward if the countless accusations of shenanigans in the general election aren't fully investigated and resolved to most Americans' satisfaction. The veil has been lifted. Why should we trust our "elected representatives" if we no longer trust the integrity of our elections?

I'd like to know what "satisfaction" would actually mean. For some I have spoken with, it seems to mean the outcome they want regardless of how it is arrived upon

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:16 pm
- If many Americans firmly believe that illegal election law changes and possibly also fraud stole the election and that the political systems within our constitutional republic failed to protect us from it, then they may start to conclude that the Republic has fallen and needs to be either reclaimed or replaced. "Sit down and shut up" is what many disillusioned Americans have resigned themselves to for decades, but things really seem to be approaching a boiling point.

Some levelheaded people think things will just simmer down after this election drama plays itself out, but I have my doubts. Either way the decision goes, it seems like a distinct possibility -- maybe even a likelihood -- that conflict will continue to grow. I hope I'm just being pessimistic.

Well then I'd say you've outlined the road to the third alternative which is a revolution/Civil War.
I'm not sure yet who would be fighting who. I'm not even sure what the specific goals would be because most of the complaints I have heard are very diffuse and broad in nature, and involve broadly labeled groups like Democrats or RINOs, but not specific people (except maybe George Soros). In Georgia right now Republicans are fighting Republicans. At least in the Civil War, the uniforms were clear identifiers.

Agree on all counts. Especially on the "satisfaction" point. It seems to me that most of the fraud conspiracy theorists in general have already made up their mind that there was fraud. They view it as guilty until proven innocent instead of innocent until proven guilty. They don't believe it is on Trump to prove guilt, they believe it is on Biden to prove innocence... and that's not really how the legal system works. There seems to be no amount of evidence that would satisfy them that there was no fraud. Really, the only option to make them happy would be throwing the election results out and Trump staying in office. I really don't think this is about fraud or fairness in elections... it seems to me to be more of a temper tantrum that their guy didn't win and a demand that democracy be thrown out and their guy put in regardless of the election results. At least this is how it comes across to me. There was proven tampering in the 2016 election, and none of the Republicans cared back then.

Basically, there's a BIG difference between demanding investigation, and demanding a specific result. I'm all for investigation, and I'll accept the result whether it goes the way I believe it will or not. It's hypocritical and makes no sense to demand investigation, but only accept the investigation if you get the result you want. Do you want the truth, or do you just want to win?

Trump just filed a motion to intervene in the Texas case.

I'm no legal beagle, but I believe that means he's asking the Supreme Court to include him as a party to the suit. With our without the permission of Texas.

I haven't read the story yet but just saw the headline that 16 or 17 other states have joined Texas as plaintiffs.

If true the Supremes can only dodge this one by demonstrating they are irrelevant puppets.

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:37 pm

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:16 pm


- The concept of "elected representatives" in the minds of large portions of the American public is going to change dramatically going forward if the countless accusations of shenanigans in the general election aren't fully investigated and resolved to most Americans' satisfaction. The veil has been lifted. Why should we trust our "elected representatives" if we no longer trust the integrity of our elections?

I'd like to know what "satisfaction" would actually mean. For some I have spoken with, it seems to mean the outcome they want regardless of how it is arrived upon

Tortoise wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:16 pm
- If many Americans firmly believe that illegal election law changes and possibly also fraud stole the election and that the political systems within our constitutional republic failed to protect us from it, then they may start to conclude that the Republic has fallen and needs to be either reclaimed or replaced. "Sit down and shut up" is what many disillusioned Americans have resigned themselves to for decades, but things really seem to be approaching a boiling point.

Some levelheaded people think things will just simmer down after this election drama plays itself out, but I have my doubts. Either way the decision goes, it seems like a distinct possibility -- maybe even a likelihood -- that conflict will continue to grow. I hope I'm just being pessimistic.

Well then I'd say you've outlined the road to the third alternative which is a revolution/Civil War.
I'm not sure yet who would be fighting who. I'm not even sure what the specific goals would be because most of the complaints I have heard are very diffuse and broad in nature, and involve broadly labeled groups like Democrats or RINOs, but not specific people (except maybe George Soros). In Georgia right now Republicans are fighting Republicans. At least in the Civil War, the uniforms were clear identifiers.

Same similar points I've many times made in response. When we come to this new revolution / Civil War how do I know who I'm supposed to be fighting in my neighborhood? Surely, SOME of them would have to be on the opposite side from me? I live in one of those neighborhoods where you have a mix of old, old, old houses and much, much newer houses and houses worth anywhere from $100,000 to probably $600,000. And, I'm sure all kinds of diverse political opinions.

Vinny

yankees60 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:15 pm Same similar points I've many times made in response. When we come to this new revolution / Civil War how do I know who I'm supposed to be fighting in my neighborhood? Surely, SOME of them would have to be on the opposite side from me? I live in one of those neighborhoods where you have a mix of old, old, old houses and much, much newer houses and houses worth anywhere from $100,000 to probably $600,000. And, I'm sure all kinds of diverse political opinions.

Vinny

It's a tough call. Even though the dead rabbits have it going on, I have to side with Bill the Butcher.

I’m betting the court rules for the defendants in some fashion. In any event the legislatures are Democrat, so Biden wins even if Texas prevails. But if they do force the legislatures to select electors, thus invalidating the elections, that will be at least a moral victory, because it will spotlight the banana republic stuff being done in our elections. I would be happy with that.

I think the worst case is if the court gets into micro management of the mail ballots and such.

Arizona has joined. Now its 19 states. I am sure CNN will not report this.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:10 pm

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:47 pm I’m betting the court rules for the defendants in some fashion. In any event the legislatures are Democrat, so Biden wins even if Texas prevails. But if they do force the legislatures to select electors, thus invalidating the elections, that will be at least a moral victory, because it will spotlight the banana republic stuff being done in our elections. I would be happy with that.

I think the worst case is if the court gets into micro management of the mail ballots and such.

The legislatures in question are all Republican, not Democrat.
Does that change your analysis?

Bingo. I still think Biden is an extreme longshot to win the electron since Trump won in a landslide.

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:47 pm
I think the worst case is if the court gets into micro management of the mail ballots and such.

I think one of the smarter aspects of the filing is that Texas did not argue that there was election fraud, but only that the swing states violated their own constitutions.

Also they do not ask the court to decide the election in Trump’s favor, but only to allow the legislatures to pick their electors.

All of that should allow the process to move fairly quickly, since there will be no arguments over fraud or no fraud, etc.

Youtube banning election fraud content is a sign they know they're losing badly and are panicked. It's out of desperation. They've never made a single attempt to refute any evidence.

Get your popcorn boys and girls and head over to parlor and bitchute for some good old fashioned free speech.