General Discussion

onenote

(46,176 posts)

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

Wed Dec 9, 2020, 07:06 PM

Dec 2020

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now that Trump joined Texas lawsuit The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this farce of a case [View all] Saboburns Dec 2020 OP

So it is Trump and the state of Texas suing the other states exboyfil Dec 2020 #1

No. It is a state v state case within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. onenote Dec 2020 #11

Whoopsie rurallib Dec 2020 #2

Looking at the past few months, I think grumpyduck Dec 2020 #3

dear trump, we were doing what YOUR cdc said do do and YOU said to do. AllaN01Bear Dec 2020 #4

It just keep getting more insane each day liberal N proud Dec 2020 #5

He's requested to intervene. That has not been granted. Nevilledog Dec 2020 #6

did he actually join the case? or just tweet that he'd "intervene"? unblock Dec 2020 #7

He hasn't joined the lawsuit yet, dware Dec 2020 #8

Joinder is discretionary, so we'll see. But what I think is going on here is: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #12

Paxton's indictment is a state indictment, not federal. onenote Dec 2020 #26

There were some civil SEC charges filed against him, which were dismissed, but The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #28

I have no doubt that you are correct about the pardon. dware Dec 2020 #41

A president who is supposed to be president to all Americans blueinredohio Dec 2020 #13

He's seeking to intervene as a candidate, not in his official capacity. onenote Dec 2020 #15

If he can intervene as a candidate blueinredohio Dec 2020 #16

Were they candidates? I don't think so. onenote Dec 2020 #21

You're saying it has to be someone who was a candidate in this election? blueinredohio Dec 2020 #33

yep onenote Dec 2020 #36

Were there people from these states who weren't candidates this election? blueinredohio Dec 2020 #40

Question for you: If Trump has standing as a candidate, which arguably he does, The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #29

He would have to sue in a lower court. onenote Dec 2020 #30

That's what I thought. He could be screwing himself with this move, The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #31

The attorney representing him in the SCOTUS is a joke. onenote Dec 2020 #35

John C. Eastman - quite a piece of work. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #37

Maybe not - it's possible the court has supplemental jurisdiction, The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #9

False. The Supreme Court can and does permit non-state intervenors in original jurisdiction cases. onenote Dec 2020 #10

All this with ZERO evidence of fraudulent voting. world wide wally Dec 2020 #14

I thought it was W.C. Fields that said that..... Squidly Dec 2020 #17

You may be right on WC Fields world wide wally Dec 2020 #18

Groucho Marx once said that to me DFW Dec 2020 #20

Love your stories DFW! Squidly Dec 2020 #39

Not actually StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #19

They may deny it, but the Court can and does permit non-state intervenors in state v state cases. onenote Dec 2020 #22

I didn't say it was a given. Note my use of the word "likely" StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #24

I guess his intervention will backfire. 2naSalit Dec 2020 #23

His intervention won't be determinative of the outcome. onenote Dec 2020 #25

Thanks for clearing this up Saboburns Dec 2020 #27

What evidence does Texas has that Georgia or Michigan fraudulently ran their elections. Blue_true Dec 2020 #32

No more evidence than any of the other 54 failed lawsuits were able to produce. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #38

The sooner this clusterfuck of a shit show ends the better! Initech Dec 2020 #34