Even if the SCOTUS denies this Texas lawsuit

[Proud liberal 80]

Something like this shouldn’t even be possible...the fact that we just had 150 Million plus voters vote and the winning candidate has 81 Million of those votes, our country shouldn’t be in the hands of 9 people to decide who is President.

[Orrex]

1. If in some freak outcome they overturn the vote

Then they will have torn up the Constitution, shit on it, set it on fire, pissed on the ashes and buried the ashes in a manure heap.

Roberts, for all of his considerable faults, will not permit that to be his legacy.

[ck4829]

4. I was just thinking of the *OTHER* consequences ruling for Texas would have

It would be immediate and very destructive.

If one state can declare they've been injured by another state's elections, where would it end?

What if a state government doesn't like how a city elected a certain person as mayor in another state?

[Ferrets are Cool]

6. My thoughts also

[MFM008]

5. exacty

plus the "word" is Roberts does NOT like BLOTUS.
Hes not sacrificing his court legacy to benefit maggot.

[exboyfil]

8. What if it is 5-4 without him?

I don't think it is possible, but I didn't think they would get a case to the USSC like this either.

They already showed they were hacks on the NY Covid restrictions. They are driven by ideology.

It is truly amazing that so many are fighting the results of a fair election to keep the most unsuitable person to ever hold the office in office. It is not like Biden is a wild eyed socialist. He is about as middle of the road as you can get.

[Blue_true]

14. My guess is that if the denial isn't unanimous, Roberts like brings

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over to help the 3 liberal reject this act of sedition. But my guess is the rejection will be unanimous, with stern language. The OP gave an accurate description of what they will do to the Constitution if they even allow oral arguments on that farce of a suit.

[Rebl2]

15. I would hope

there is stern language!

[Amishman]

36. I'd see Alito as seeing reason too

Or even a unanimous group by the conservatives.

Why? They can reject this and start the transition to post Trump politics (something I suspect most or all of them want) - and also use it to firmly codify states as owning their own election process. The last part would be good for the long-term Republican strategy as they can word this affirmation of state's rights in a way that strongly limits future federal efforts towards election reform.

[Blue_true]

37. Interesting observation.

I believe you are on target. Barrett and Kavanaugh, to name two are in the the long game of slowly taking away rights from “undesireds”, I don’t see those two allowing Trump’s power grab to blow up their long game. Gorsuch is and will continue to be a wildcard, given his libertarian streak.

[iluvtennis]

19. + 106 rethuglican House representatives want to throw out the votes of the people. They all

need to be voted out when their terms are up. What they did is like slapping constituents i the face to say, you vote doesn't matter, we can do whatever we want.

[niyad]

21. Since they were all just re-elected, that will be a while.

[Orrex]

22. They've all committed direct violations of their oath of office

They should not be seated.

Also, though I may be incorrect, I believe that such a violation may be a criminal offense and should be treated as such.

[niyad]

27. That would be something to see. Wonder what Speaker Pelosi is planning.

[iluvtennis]

23. Are you sure all 106 were on the ballot in 2020? I would think some are up for relection in 2022. n

[niyad]

24. These are representatives, not senators.

[iluvtennis]

25. OK, my bad. please accept my apologies. nt

[niyad]

26. Not a problem. So much bs going on, it is hard to keep track of it all.

[Squidly]

29. one was King from Iowa

And he diddnt even run for reelection. Hes gone in Jan...his final act of being the douche that he is.

[beachbumbob]

2. Have some faith in the constitution and the law

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. That's what is crazy about this...

it is LAWyers pulling this bullshit. Hard to believe in the LAW when LAWyers are behind it.
Also, hard to believe in LAW or JUSTICE when an asswipe like tRump can pardon anyone he wants.

[malaise]

34. Every single one should be disbarred

That is all

[Ferrets are Cool]

35. +1

[SoonerPride]

11. Why? It hasn't held trump back at all.

Why are you thinking a piece of paper means jack squat

[lastlib]

16. Republicanazis (Bush the Lesser) have already called it "a G-- D----- piece of paper."

They are not beholden to it. Their oath is a joke to them. They are beholden only to power and their wealth; f--- the citizens/workers, they're only fodder for the machine.

[beachbumbob]

31. so the 50 court case loss so far is squat? Come on now

[SoonerPride]

32. That's just the coup.

He has gotten away with crimes for 4 years. The constitution didn’t stop him.

[beachbumbob]

33. what crimes specifically And why would a Trump DOJ care?

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Only as strong as their weakest link.

[elleng]

3. Repug fools in texas, along with their friend(s), PUT ridiculous b.s. in the hands of those 9 people

[exboyfil]

9. So how many votes do you think Trump

will get?

1. To hear the case
2. To rule in favor of the merits of the case if it gets to that point

[elleng]

10. ZERO

As Rep.Jamie Raskin just said about the 'matter' on Rachel show: 'MOST absurd, and SANCTIONABLE action! Totally political so NON-JUSTICIABLE, NO cause of action!'

[onenote]

12. Two votes to hear the case are a given.

Since Thomas and Alito are on record as believing that the Court must hear state v state cases (notwithstanding 100 years of precedent to the contrary).

[vapor2]

17. Not to mention the 106 TRAITORS who signed on to this shitshow.

Is anyone else saddened by this?

[left-of-center2012]

18. I'm guessing the Supremes won't even hear the case

[czarjak]

20. Oh yeah? They said "fuck your feelings", remember, so there?

[Blue Owl]

28. K&R

You said it...

[rdking647]

30. disbar eveyone of then thats a lawyer

disbar every lawyer involved in the lawsuit starting with paxson