Affidavit--We saw some stuff and it was Highly Suspicious!

OK when's the Do-Over?

I’m glad Trump lost, now he’ll have more time to work on his hotels.

Do you even Murrica bro?

I feel that the rules are trump and his team gets to say whatever he wants until January 20th. So you better watch out until then master

Worse than 'fake news' is 'well that is your opinion, and I have the right to my opinion' and that becomes the argument. You can't have a discussion with that. It's pointless.

Even though I am certain Trump would lose on the merits, I really hope the SCOTUS doesn't hear the case. Because if the Court hears the case, it will spawn a million "It's happening" memes across the right wing derposphere. And then a predictable backlash of conspiracy thinking when the SCOTUS rules against Trump on the merits. No good can come from that sequence.

Hmmm.

it is not the Dems finding a spine to fight but at least it is something.

'A Disgrace': Hundreds of Lawyers Call for Bar Condemnations of Trump Election Lawyers

“A license to practice law is not a license to lie to the public on behalf of a client, whether doing so endangers one individual or the entire body politic,” more than 1,500 attorneys said of the Trump campaign lawyers in an open letter....

BTW I think the above would have much more weight to the Bar if it was a letter from Congress saying the same thing, saying the faith in laws and those who swear to uphold them' was at risk, and asking for a review.

Agreed.

The best thing that could happen, imo, is a refusal to hear it but with a scathing dismissal about how what has been presented having no standing or merits.

I know some say no comment is better but I do not agree. It leaves it open for Trumpsters to argue it was a technical issue (just too late, etc) as opposed to meritless.

I think refusing the case in a 9-0 vote is enough

This would be best, but I don't think that will happen. Deliberately inserting the SCOTUS into political hurricanes isn't Roberts's style.

It would be enough. But i think the elaboration is better.

I agree it is unlikely.

But I also think it sometimes behooves the SC to address, thru their decisions how they came to their decision when they know it may contentious otherwise. The entire art of attaching opinions and dissents addresses just that.

It is further elaboration that is not needed (the ruling simply would do) but is offered so an audience can better understand the positions.

This is a unique case with unique petitions to the SC claiming an election was fake and fraudulent.

The SC weighing in that they were asked to review and found no merit in the claims would go a long way to addressing that. Maybe not to all in the heat of passions but certainly to the history books.

For instance if the SC dismisses it without comment I will bet you will instantly see the lack of comment as meaning 'we were correct and had the proof but due to Safe Harbor date passing, they just could not hear it. Dammit we gave this away thru inaction and missing a date'.

Some will say conspiracy theorists will always make up an excuse, which is true, but the SC could deny them most of them based on the claim being meritorious with such a statement.

At this juncture, if there is a substantive opinion in connection with the SCOTUS declining to hear the case, it is unlikely to get into the merits of Trump's allegations. Getting into the merits of Trump's allegations is something I would expect to see only IF the Court heard the case.

A substantive decision at this juncture would focus on the breadth of the SCOTUS's original jurisdiction, whether Texas has standing, and whether the lawsuit was timely.

I agree that is likely but sadly such a ruling will only fuel the 'we were right but due to administrative stuff the SC would not hear it'.

I now almost want the SC to hear it as I just listened to a review of the claims and the entire thing needs as much fact checking as a Trump rally statement.

I cannot imagine the SC not sanctioning the lawyers for presenting claim after claim that are unsupported, already dismissed as bogus in other suits, and just flat out misrepresentations.

Typically judges do not just roll over and allow such garbage in their courts.

I am confident if this was 2016 and it was the Dems refusing to acknowledge Trump that the Republicans would do exactly this...

OMG that twitter notification made me laugh.

Sometimes it's the small lies that are the funniest. Like, Trump didn't get 75M votes, he got 74.2M. Inflating that number doesn't even materially change anything, he just can't not lie, even about the tiniest details.

Glad I’m not the only one thinking Paxton pulled this **** just to get a pardon.

Even Republican Senator Ben Sasse think so.



Pretty hilarious that more than half of House Republicans and nearly 20 states were stupid enough to sign onto this stunt, willfully creating an alternate reality because they can't stand that the one they live in rejected Dear Leader.

womp womp, so sorry Trump fans

SC reject to hear Texas lawsuit saying they have no standing.

Two Justices dissent.