President Trump and US politics catchall

[Sinkers]

It's a Trump loyalty test. Paxton is fishing for a federal pardon (he's in quite a lot if trouble) and everyone else signing on is looking fir MAGA endorsements and funding.

SCOTUS actually needs to hear argument on this so that they can disembowel it for the political junk that it is.

I’m pretty sure they won’t touch it with a bargepole, in exactly the same way they have avoided all others.

And I understand why they're avoiding it. But in the long term that's the wrong decision. They have to destroy this in an unequivocal 9-0 decision. Avoiding it just encourages further, more extreme, nonsense in future

Case gone - rejected by SCOTUS - Texas does not have legal standing to bring the case.

[Biffer]

SCOTUS have thrown out the Texas case with a short none of your business kind of statement.

[Ata Rangi]

I’m pretty sure they won’t touch it with a bargepole, in exactly the same way they have avoided all others.

And I understand why they're avoiding it. But in the long term that's the wrong decision. They have to destroy this in an unequivocal 9-0 decision. Avoiding it just encourages further, more extreme, nonsense in future

Case gone - rejected by SCOTUS - Texas does not have legal standing to bring the case.

Justice Ronan Keating to the fore.

[Flockwitt]

This one is good enough to be shared cross-boreds.

https://twitter.com/PaulLeeTeeks/status ... 5464263681

[Gumboot]

This one is good enough to be shared cross-boreds.

https://twitter.com/PaulLeeTeeks/status ... 5464263681

[Rinkals]

I’m pretty sure they won’t touch it with a bargepole, in exactly the same way they have avoided all others.

And I understand why they're avoiding it. But in the long term that's the wrong decision. They have to destroy this in an unequivocal 9-0 decision. Avoiding it just encourages further, more extreme, nonsense in future

Case gone - rejected by SCOTUS - Texas does not have legal standing to bring the case.

So it's been dismissed on a technicality?

That's hardly an endorsement of democracy.

[Ted.]

And I understand why they're avoiding it. But in the long term that's the wrong decision. They have to destroy this in an unequivocal 9-0 decision. Avoiding it just encourages further, more extreme, nonsense in future

Case gone - rejected by SCOTUS - Texas does not have legal standing to bring the case.

So it's been dismissed on a technicality?

That's hardly an endorsement of democracy.

Repudiated rather than dismissed. i.e. it was not heard because of the law.

[Hal Jordan]

I wonder how much evidence is being destroyed behind the scenes as Trump's mob try and make the Administration as crippled as possible before the plums are dragged out.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I’m pretty sure they won’t touch it with a bargepole, in exactly the same way they have avoided all others.

And I understand why they're avoiding it. But in the long term that's the wrong decision. They have to destroy this in an unequivocal 9-0 decision. Avoiding it just encourages further, more extreme, nonsense in future

Case gone - rejected by SCOTUS - Texas does not have legal standing to bring the case.

I don't think there was a good out for SCOTUS in this, they shouldn't allow people to throw mud at the court and be allowed to claim it's a case the court needs to consider, against which this was a case it would've been good to get some people on the record and eviscerate their claims.

It's all very through the looking glass with how many people, even if at no jeopardy to themselves, got behind the 'big one'. It says nothing good about democracy or sanity in the USA

[Rinkals]

And I understand why they're avoiding it. But in the long term that's the wrong decision. They have to destroy this in an unequivocal 9-0 decision. Avoiding it just encourages further, more extreme, nonsense in future

Case gone - rejected by SCOTUS - Texas does not have legal standing to bring the case.

I don't think there was a good out for SCOTUS in this, they shouldn't allow people to throw mud at the court and be allowed to claim it's a case the court needs to consider, against which this was a case it would've been good to get some people on the record and eviscerate their claims.

It's all very through the looking glass with how many people, even if at no jeopardy to themselves, got behind the 'big one'. It says nothing good about democracy or sanity in the USA

It gives the case a veneer of validity in the way that it has been rejected, not because of a lack of merit, but rather as a procedural misstep in the presentation.

Which, in turn allows those pushing to overturn the election to claim legitimacy.

I suppose it would be too much to expect for a panel appointed on the basis of their partisan backgrounds and allegiances would be likely to issue judgements based on jurisprudence rather than political affiliation.

How very banana Republic.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Not having standing to bring a case, and obviously not having having that, is more than a procedural misstep. There's a reason the only lawyer willing to sign it is a crazy old racist birther.

[Hal Jordan]

I see the next step is the Insurrection Act, "Marshall Law" and "succession" from the USA to form the Red States of Rasciststan.

And Trump refused to attend his own Christmas party. What a fucking baby.

[Rinkals]

Not having standing to bring a case, and obviously not having having that, is more than a procedural misstep. There's a reason the only lawyer willing to sign it is a crazy old racist birther.

If they were serious about defending their democracy, it would have been quashed in no uncertain terms.

This way they allow those that backed this action justification for doing so.

[fishfoodie]

Not having standing to bring a case, and obviously not having having that, is more than a procedural misstep. There's a reason the only lawyer willing to sign it is a crazy old racist birther.

If they were serious about defending their democracy, it would have been quashed in no uncertain terms.

This way they allow those that backed this action justification for doing so.

It was quashed in, "no uncertain terms".

If there was any shred of validity in the claims; they would have taken the cases in the States they claimed there was illegality; but there isn't so they couldn't. So instead they went to one of the most corrupt States there is & cobbled together with a mixture of lies & graft, a bullshit case that SCOTUS said didn't even warrant their consideration.

[Rinkals]

Well, it looks to me like it was overturned on a technicality.

This gives the backers who brought this to court justification and gives the impression that the case might have been upheld if the process had been followed properly.

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

[fishfoodie]

Well, it looks to me like it was overturned on a technicality.

This gives the backers who brought this to court justification and gives the impression that the case might have been upheld if the process had been followed properly.

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

It wasn't overturned because of a technicality. The court found that there was no case; because there was no injury. That's effectively what the court saying the States had no standing means.

It's like me making a complaint about a theft, when I wasn't either of the parties involved, & in fact, the both parties were happy with the exchange.

The thick fucks who support this farce will feel aggrieved regardless, so it's pointless to think otherwise.

[GogLais]

Well, it looks to me like it was overturned on a technicality.

This gives the backers who brought this to court justification and gives the impression that the case might have been upheld if the process had been followed properly.

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

If it’s fallen at the first the SCOTUS doesn’t have to let the jockey remount. I hope that’s an appropriate analogy.

[Ata Rangi]

Fish was close enough.

[fishfoodie]

There have to be consequences from all this shit; it can't just be a one way bet to pander to the orange arsehole, & try and keep sweet with his, "base"

[Uncle fester]

Not having standing to bring a case, and obviously not having having that, is more than a procedural misstep. There's a reason the only lawyer willing to sign it is a crazy old racist birther.

If they were serious about defending their democracy, it would have been quashed in no uncertain terms.

This way they allow those that backed this action justification for doing so.

It doesn't matter what they do. The dumb Fuchs who believe the conspiracy theory will believe that no matter what.

[Slick]

There have to be consequences from all this shit; it can't just be a one way bet to pander to the orange arsehole, & try and keep sweet with his, "base"

I like this

[Uncle fester]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

[fishfoodie]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

No Government should ever, not enforce a Nations Laws because of a tiny number of nutters who threaten to break those Laws.

[Uncle fester]

With most Republicans believing the election was dodgy and the armaments stocked by the general population, I'd be thinking realpolitik and try to defuse the situation.

Look at Spanish civil war and how it started to see how things can get out of hand very quickly.

[Ata Rangi]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

Yep. Threatening to use a narrow majority to attempt to deprive electors of the services of their duly elected Article 1 Representatives for supporting the resolution of a Constitutional issue relating to the election of the Article 2 by the relevant Article 3 body. Sounds grand.

[Slick]

Well, it looks to me like it was overturned on a technicality.

This gives the backers who brought this to court justification and gives the impression that the case might have been upheld if the process had been followed properly.

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

Can you just read one trustworthy news source before posting in future?

[Enzedder]

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

I think that this is a con is closer to the mark.

[Ted.]

Not having standing to bring a case, and obviously not having having that, is more than a procedural misstep. There's a reason the only lawyer willing to sign it is a crazy old racist birther.

If they were serious about defending their democracy, it would have been quashed in no uncertain terms.

This way they allow those that backed this action justification for doing so.

It was quashed in, "no uncertain terms".

If there was any shred of validity in the claims; they would have taken the cases in the States they claimed there was illegality; but there isn't so they couldn't. So instead they went to one of the most corrupt States there is & cobbled together with a mixture of lies & graft, a bullshit case that SCOTUS said didn't even warrant their consideration.

Precisely.

IMO, that SCOTUS will not get involved in a political bunfight is a good thing.

[Rinkals]

Well, it looks to me like it was overturned on a technicality.

This gives the backers who brought this to court justification and gives the impression that the case might have been upheld if the process had been followed properly.

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

If it’s fallen at the first the SCOTUS doesn’t have to let the jockey remount. I hope that’s an appropriate analogy.

Anyone can fall off a horse.

If it was a hopeless nag with zero chance of winning and the reason it fell down dead is that you'd overdosed it with viagra, then that would surely be a crime and should be treated as such.

[Ted.]

With most Republicans believing the election was dodgy and the armaments stocked by the general population, I'd be thinking realpolitik and try to defuse the situation.

Look at Spanish civil war and how it started to see how things can get out of hand very quickly.

Lawlessness is you solution to lawlessness. That'll work.

[Ted.]

Well, it looks to me like it was overturned on a technicality.

This gives the backers who brought this to court justification and gives the impression that the case might have been upheld if the process had been followed properly.

The fact is that this was nothing less than an attempted coup and it should have been treated as such.

If it’s fallen at the first the SCOTUS doesn’t have to let the jockey remount. I hope that’s an appropriate analogy.

Anyone can fall off a horse.

If it was a hopeless nag with zero chance of winning and the reason it fell down dead is that you'd overdosed it with viagra, then that would surely be a crime and should be treated as such.

You are missing the point, Rinkals. Miss it by a huge margin too.

[Torquemada 1420]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

Part of me thinks if yanks want to blow each other to hell, good luck.

[Biffer]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

Part of me thinks if yanks want to blow each other to hell, good luck.

Shit take though. They'd take the rest of us with them one way or another.

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

This one is good enough to be shared cross-boreds.

https://twitter.com/PaulLeeTeeks/status ... 5464263681

[GogLais]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

Part of me thinks if yanks want to blow each other to hell, good luck.

I feel that to some extent but if there has to be a superpower in the world, I prefer the USA to some of the other candidates.

[Rinkals]

If it’s fallen at the first the SCOTUS doesn’t have to let the jockey remount. I hope that’s an appropriate analogy.

Anyone can fall off a horse.

If it was a hopeless nag with zero chance of winning and the reason it fell down dead is that you'd overdosed it with viagra, then that would surely be a crime and should be treated as such.

You are missing the point, Rinkals. Miss it by a huge margin too.

I'm saying that this was an attempted coup.

[Ted.]

Anyone can fall off a horse.

If it was a hopeless nag with zero chance of winning and the reason it fell down dead is that you'd overdosed it with viagra, then that would surely be a crime and should be treated as such.

You are missing the point, Rinkals. Miss it by a huge margin too.

I'm saying that this was an attempted coup.

Yes. The courts loaded with shonky lawyers, trying to politicise those very same courts, being the weapon of choice.

If you want a political solution, look at Congress, not the courts - which IMO are politicised enough in the US without wishing to make them more so. That's a very greasy slope.

[Torquemada 1420]

Trouble is that the militia types will use stuff line that as "proof" of how they are being opposed and their casus belli for initiating armed conflict.

Part of me thinks if yanks want to blow each other to hell, good luck.

Shit take though. They'd take the rest of us with them one way or another.

Mehh. Not convinced of that. Smells of usual pattern or decline and death of an empire. Just Rome with 1/100th of the culture and contribution to the world.

[Biffer]

Part of me thinks if yanks want to blow each other to hell, good luck.

Shit take though. They'd take the rest of us with them one way or another.

Mehh. Not convinced of that. Smells of usual pattern or decline and death of an empire. Just Rome with 1/100th of the culture and contribution to the world.

When the Western roman empire collapsed Europe entered the dark ages.

[Glaston]

How is Biden/Harris Time magaxine "Person's of the Year"?
Seriously, win an election against a twat and you are person of the year, thats a low bar for winning,