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

Show me where it is illegal to go to court using legal means.

 

Delusional

 

How many responses to your silliness do I need to post for you before you actually read and understand them? I just did, yet again.

 

Making them all the more dangerous.

 

And yet as we continue to see, clearly not as dangerous as politicians who have remaining ambitions to fulfill.

 

None of them actually quoted a law.

Your comment about the 14th amendment does not forbid them from going to court legally using legal processes.

 

From PA's filing in opposition.................

"Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an afront to principles of constitutional democracy."

 

Sadly it could be endless posts.

 

And yet you claim "you do not bother with me".

 

Not a coup, an auto-golpe. Big difference.

 

What I'm saying is a complete lack of accountability or recourse for actions taken isn't a good thing.

 

Not really. "An autogolpe is a form of putsch or coup d'état in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances." Trump is seeking to overturn the election results by use of frivolous lawsuits.

 

Article III and the 10th and 14th Amendments are not part of the Supreme Law of the Land to you?

About 50 lawsuits, at least 2 petitioning SCOTUS for writ of certiorari, ALL (but 1) without merit, many with NO STANDING and ALL designed to overturn the election is not a blatant attempt at a coup and a gross abuse of the judicial process? Try it sometime and see if you can get away without getting prosecuted.

 

Right, so what Trump is doing is technically an auto-golpe, not a coup de etat. It matters because in order to do so, he needs key allies in the military and bureaucracy to launch his auto-golpe.

 

That does not make it illegal to petition the court.

 

He isn't trying to "dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature." He's trying to have legal votes thrown out by court action.

 

"What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with the election that have already been considered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless, and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...sylvania Opp to Bill of Complaint v.FINAL.pdf

 

Another 20 Republicans in congress signed on, making it a count of 17 AGs who think they know better about what took place in other states, and 126 morally bankrupt legislators more concerned with keeping their jobs that actually doing their jobs.

And the Supreme Court said no to the whole mess.

 

A Guide To Who Wants SCOTUS To Destroy Democracy For Trump And Who Doesn’t

"The latest litmus test for any Trump-loving Republican is whether you back an outrageous lawsuit Texas has sought to file in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Joe Biden’s wins in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan should be tossed out.

Despite the many prominent conservative legal commentators expressing disgust for Texas’ claims, more than a dozen GOP state attorneys general have offered their formal support of the case, as has two-thirds of the Republican House conference.

Here is a look at who is getting involved and what they’re arguing."
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...to-destroy-democracy-for-trump-and-who-doesnt

 

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

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

 

Has the court declared any such thing? It is more dangerous to our Constitution to deny access to the courts than it is to allow it to be taken to court and dismissed.

 

When it's one or two lawsuits that violate the FRCP, it may not cause a judge to issue a sanction, when it's around 50, it can't be an any more obvious multiple gross violation of the FRCP that absolutely requires sanction. IMO the only reasons why not one of these judges have decided to sanction any of these attorneys is because they didn't want to appear politically inclined in their rulings and that they all involve a sitting President.

 

You're missing the point. The courts have been lenient because it's Trump. He's still the POTUS. If you or I filed frivolous law suits without evidence, we would be sanctioned long before our 50th dismissal. The courts have been tolerant, but judging by the SCOTUS firm message here, judges are on their last nerve. If this keeps up, somebody will become a sacrificial lamb. Then it will stop.

 

I'm sure he's devastated, he's missing out on so much....

 

Where is the limit in the Constitution or anywhere else?

Again. I do not agree with what they did. However, it was legal and I would much rather see a petition thrown out than criminalize them for doing it. That would arbitrarily put too much power in the judicial branch. Not that don't have too much power already. But, that is another argument.