General Discussion

The Velveteen Ocelot

(130,677 posts)

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

Wed Dec 9, 2020, 07:08 PM

Dec 2020

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.

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