17 GOP AG's and 106 GOP representatives supported an attempted coup.

I applaud your (and Bob0627) patience. It’s amazing how many times this has to be explained to people. Same goes for the BS claims of “stolen election”. But no matter how many time we explain things it just doesn’t seem to register.

 

POTUS did not file the motion.

 

Well aren’t you all emotional today. Hope your day gets better.

 

I would say he is if he's trying to declare the elections invalid, because throwing out the votes is how dictators take power in auto-golpes. Without votes, national legislatives have no power.

 

Belief in conspiracies requires a high level of skill in psychological rationalization. I guess we all rationalize our beliefs and behavior to an extent, but conspiracy is beyond my ability.

Yeah, if they're gonna repeat the same tired debunked nonsense, somebody gotta straighten 'em out. Thank you.

 

He thinks the world begins and ends with him.

 

Murphy Baldly Names GOP’s Attempt To ‘Overthrow Our Democracy’ On Senate Floor
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/murphy-gop-overthrow-democracy-senate

https://twitter.com/i/status/1337467239906283531

 

Here is the full text of the SCOTUS response:

"The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

(The emphasis is mine.)

That, as the saying goes, is all she wrote.

 

Serious stuff, but I found a bit of levity in the responses.

BREAKING: Trump has filed an emergency lawsuit to overturn the results of the Time Magazine Person of the Year after losing to Joe Biden

But seriously, this can't be overlooked by the Democrats. The big tent doesn't include seditious traitors. Cumbaya ends on the 21st.

 

No where does it say it was unconstitutional to submit it.

 

Again the INTENT is to overthrow the election and the will of The People. This is expressly forbidden by the Constitution in multiple clauses.

You have a right to your opinion but that doesn't change the facts. Too much power in the judiciary would be if the judiciary violated powers granted to it under Article III and violated the 10th and 14th Amendments in the process by reviewing the merits of a case that lacked any merit whatsoever and/or standing within the constraints of Article III. The judiciary has already violated its own rules (RFCP Rule 11) by failing to issue sanctions where warranted in multiple filings.

 

I desperately wish things were different. I wish Repubs could be relied on to negotiate in good faith for the better of the country. To put country and democracy before party...........and themselves. To above all have respect for the Constitution.

That isn't the way things are. We need to come to grips with reality, as difficult as it is to accept. The majority of the GOP is now an outlier to democratic principles. They will stop at nothing to retain power.

 

The claim is that the election was fraudulent. I believe that is what they believe. I don't agree with it, but it was perfectly legal.

I have a problem when an opposing party can pick and choose which judge to go to out of hundreds in order to get the ruling they want.

 

No, it was a violation of Rule 11. We've explained this several times now. Filing frivolous lawsuits without evidence isn't unconstitutional. It's a violation of the RFCP. It's punishable by sanctions. You need to read this stuff if you hope to understand it.

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.

Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:

(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or

(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.

(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.

 

Like I said, I do not agree with them doing it, but there was nothing illegal about doing it. Apparently SCOTUS agrees with me since they have not taken any such action.

 

What's odd or telling is that you would characterize the effort thru perfectly legal and civilized means to bring about greater transparency and accountability in an election, as an "attempted coup". It says more of your fear and the nature of your own media driven coup, which is the only way the left wins anything. In short, take your win. But exalt yourself to your own dissatisfaction.

 

The other way to look at it is the states who cheated, violated the Constitution of the United States, and swung an election to the persons who actually did not win have just disenfranchised every single American from their vote, since we are so concerned about the "will of the voters." Regardless of who you voted for, this is very bad news for the republic.

 

Yeah, I think it was Bill Kristol who said yesterday that there are now a Democratic Party and a Trump Party, with some sane Republicans and former Republicans on the side.

Biden wants unity, and he will strive to achieve it. What Biden doesn't do is put up with nonsense. He's not Obama. Obama capitulated and provided a birth certificate. Joe will just call him a clown. Trump is done. Being back in the world community with our allies, Trump isn't going to get any traction claiming it's a worldwide conspiracy against Trump. He'll have his base of support, which I believe will shrink, but he becomes completely impotent on the 20th. The Trump Party Republicans can suck wind. Who needs 'em.

 

So if I steal a pack of gum, that invalidates your stick of Wrigley's? Uh, whu??? That made no sense. We have 51 separate elections. What happens in one state can only disenfranchise voters within that state. It has no effect on voters in other states. Bizarre logic you got going there.

 

You can't just file a lawsuit on an alleged "belief", that would be an abuse of the judicial process, especially when it's done on about 50 separate occasions. You need EVIDENCE. A lawsuit absent EVIDENCE and in some cases even a legal argument is a clear violation of the FRCP (Rule 10). Furthermore and again for the umpteenth time, the INTENT was to overthrow the election and the will of The People.

You don't have a clue how judges are assigned to a case. No party to a lawsuit selects the judge, this is done by the court usually based on an even distribution of the workload of the available judges. Furthermore, many of these judges were Republicans and some Trump appointed judges. What on earth are you talking about?

 

Dealing with certain people...

 

When they can pick and choose which court they can go to, they are picking and choosing judges.

 

The truth is out there. Problem is, everyone has an opinion.

 

Everyone and anyone can pick which court they can use to litigate any case. In this case it was the PLAINTIFFS who did the picking, not the DEFENDANTS. Picking a court does not in any way equate to picking a judge since there are multiple judges in each venue. Either way, any case can be summarily dismissed for lack of original or subject matter jurisdiction. Or conversely, a court is chosen exactly when it does have jurisdiction in order for the case not to be summarily dismissed. In every complaint, the complainant (the Plaintiff) avers at the beginning of the Complaint that the court has subject matter jurisdiction and why. Just read any properly filed Complaint. You are not making any sense because you seem not to have a clue about the judicial process. I've personally written one federal complaint, litigated 2 federal lawsuits as well as 3 local lawsuits and written dozens of briefs.

 

It chooses who will preside over all the states. Which means that if chicanery in a small few states determines the outcome nationally, it is chicanery in them all. Fire ain't picky.