Now that Trump joined Texas lawsuit The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this farce of a case

[Saboburns]

Because it's now no longer a state suing another state.

[exboyfil]

1. So it is Trump and the state of Texas suing the other states

And it goes to the state courts?

[onenote]

11. No. It is a state v state case within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

The Court has repeatedly held, for over 100 years, that it can consider and allow a non-state entity to intervene in such a case in certain circumstances.

[rurallib]

2. Whoopsie

Does Trumpy need a lawyer?

[grumpyduck]

3. Looking at the past few months, I think

the GOP is channeling the comic strip character Pogo:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

[AllaN01Bear]

4. dear trump, we were doing what YOUR cdc said do do and YOU said to do.

YOU republicans put in mail in ballots in ca and other states to get around democrats . so, u wanted all of us to show up at the polls and get sick. end of scentance .

[liberal N proud]

5. It just keep getting more insane each day

[Nevilledog]

6. He's requested to intervene. That has not been granted.

[unblock]

7. did he actually join the case? or just tweet that he'd "intervene"?

in any event, i don't see that texas has any standing anyway. there's nothing "interstate" about each state's own elections.

[dware]

8. He hasn't joined the lawsuit yet,

he's asked the SC if he can join, and AFAIK, the SC hasn't ruled on that yet.

Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Join Widely Scorned Texas Election Lawsuit

Election experts scoffed on Tuesday when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he would be filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states in an attempt to block presidential electors from finalizing Joe Biden's election victory.

But now President Trump and 17 states he carried are joining that effort.

Officials in all of the states targeted in the suit — Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania derided it as nothing more than an unfounded publicity stunt.

The lawsuit may be a typically adept Trump move to get attention, but election law experts say he has little chance of getting the Supreme Court to support his move.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/09/944744105/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-join-widely-scorned-texas-election-lawsuit

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Joinder is discretionary, so we'll see. But what I think is going on here is:

1. Indicted Texas AG Paxton wants a pardon, so he slaps together this cockamamie lawsuit designed only to curry favor with His Lardship, even though he must know he can't win because there is no conceivable theory under which a state has standing to complain about other states' constitutional power to manage their own elections.

2. Trump gets all aroused at the awesomeness of this lawsuit, all the other 50+ cases having been tossed into the dumpster out behind the courthouses and lit on fire, so he announces he wants to be in on it.

3. Eighteen other GOP state governors and AGs, having observed His Lardship's state of arousal, now want in as well, hoping the MAGAts in their state won't primary them if they make HL happy, and won't bomb their houses either. And maybe some of them will also need pardons.

[onenote]

26. Paxton's indictment is a state indictment, not federal.

Although I suppose he could be fishing for a preemptive pardon of federal crimes he knows he's committed but for which he hasn't been charged.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. There were some civil SEC charges filed against him, which were dismissed, but

although the current indictments are under state law, there have been so many recent claims by whistleblowers in his office, and he seems so utterly stinky, that I'm betting he'd be happy to have a pardon from Trump for whatever bad federal thing he might have done. The FBI is investigating him now, https://apnews.com/article/ken-paxton-austin-texas-crime-f8413d14842d848e69cf81bb4d2e87e2 so there could be federal charges down the road.

And what would stop Trump from also leaning on that toady Gov. Abbott to offer a state pardon as a reward?

[dware]

41. I have no doubt that you are correct about the pardon.

He knows that this lawsuit has very little chance of succeeding, but he's thinking that Pissolini will owe him a pardon, because, hey, I tried, but YOUR people on the Supreme Court went against you.

Now, about that pardon Mr. Pres?

[blueinredohio]

13. A president who is supposed to be president to all Americans

is suing some of those Americans? WTF?

[onenote]

15. He's seeking to intervene as a candidate, not in his official capacity.

And the government, which represents all Americans, brings lawsuits against some Americans several times every day.

[blueinredohio]

16. If he can intervene as a candidate

can't every KKK member, proud boy etc. join the lawsuit too?

[onenote]

21. Were they candidates? I don't think so.

[blueinredohio]

33. You're saying it has to be someone who was a candidate in this election?

Only this election?

[onenote]

36. yep

[blueinredohio]

40. Were there people from these states who weren't candidates this election?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. Question for you: If Trump has standing as a candidate, which arguably he does,

but the Supreme Court dismisses all the state plaintiffs for lack of standing because they probably don't have any, does the court retain original jurisdiction over Trump's claim or would he have to start over in a federal district court?

[onenote]

30. He would have to sue in a lower court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. That's what I thought. He could be screwing himself with this move,

but he doesn't seem to be getting decent legal advice, considering who's working for him these days.

[onenote]

35. The attorney representing him in the SCOTUS is a joke.

The law school he teaches at is second rate and he's the author of a really stupid article claiming Kamala Harris isn't a natural born citizen.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. John C. Eastman - quite a piece of work.

His professional credentials aren't so bad but he's become a crackpot for extreme right-wing causes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Eastman

His brief in the Texas case is pretty lame. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Maybe not - it's possible the court has supplemental jurisdiction,

meaning a party with the same claim on the same facts might be permitted in the court's discretion to intervene. However, the whole case is such a dog's breakfast with respect to the question of standing, just for starters, that I'd be surprised if it survives past the initial pleadings.

Also, in a case where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction it acts as a trial court, with all the requirements and procedures that go with a normal trial (though this would not be a jury trial). Just the scheduling for all the pleadings and discovery would take the trial, if there were to be one, well into January if not later. In the meantime Biden is sworn in as president and the whole thing becomes moot - if it isn't already when the Electoral College votes next week.

[onenote]

10. False. The Supreme Court can and does permit non-state intervenors in original jurisdiction cases.

Not sure where you got your information, but its wrong.

As the Supreme Court stated in 2010, it "has granted leave, under appropriate circumstances, for nonstate entities to intervene as parties in original actions between States for nearly 90 years." In other words, a request by a third party to intervene in a state v. state original jurisdiction case will not cause the Supreme Court to dismiss the case.

[world wide wally]

14. All this with ZERO evidence of fraudulent voting.

Is Trump at least paying for all this?

In the immortal words of Humphry Bogart, "Go away kid. You bother me"

[Squidly]

17. I thought it was W.C. Fields that said that.....

[world wide wally]

18. You may be right on WC Fields

[DFW]

20. Groucho Marx once said that to me

I was 8 years old, and he was probably right.

[Squidly]

39. Love your stories DFW!

That one gave me a chuckle!

[StarfishSaver]

19. Not actually

He moved to intervene, but the Court has not granted his motion, so he has not joined the suit. And since, as you noted, the Court only has jurisdiction if it's a state suing another state, the Court will likely deny his motion (if it's not sooner rendered moot by virtue of the Court refusing to take the case at all).

[onenote]

22. They may deny it, but the Court can and does permit non-state intervenors in state v state cases.

So its not a given.

[StarfishSaver]

24. I didn't say it was a given. Note my use of the word "likely"

[2naSalit]

23. I guess his intervention will backfire.

[onenote]

25. His intervention won't be determinative of the outcome.

Notwithstanding what the OP claims, the Supreme Court can and does permit a non-state intervenor in a state v state case under certain circumstances. And if they choose not to allow it, they'll simply deny Trump's petition -- it alone won't cause them to reject the Texas complaint (which they probably will reject for reasons unrelated to Trump's attempt to intervene).

[Saboburns]

27. Thanks for clearing this up

I stand corrected.

[Blue_true]

32. What evidence does Texas has that Georgia or Michigan fraudulently ran their elections.

Both Michigan and Georgia have double-checked their outcome, Georgia triple-checked it’s outcome and arrived at the same conclusion.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. No more evidence than any of the other 54 failed lawsuits were able to produce.

[Initech]

34. The sooner this clusterfuck of a shit show ends the better!