HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's the SC opinion. Sh...

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:39 PM

Here's the SC opinion. Short and sweet.

10 replies, 1433 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's the SC opinion. Short and sweet. (Original post)
brooklynite Dec 2020 OP
turtleblossom Dec 2020 #1
AkFemDem Dec 2020 #2
Alhena Dec 2020 #4
C_U_L8R Dec 2020 #5
Laelth Dec 2020 #8
qazplm135 Dec 2020 #10
cwydro Dec 2020 #3
bucolic_frolic Dec 2020 #6
DEbluedude Dec 2020 #7
bucolic_frolic Dec 2020 #9

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:41 PM

1. Thomas and Alito dissented, as expected

Based on believing it should be heard in court. But even so, they didn't think it would go far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turtleblossom (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:43 PM

2. Yeah to me (non lawyer) it reads

“I would have let you argue it but I wouldn’t have ruled in your favor anyway so it’s irrelevant”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AkFemDem (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:44 PM

4. Reads the same to me as a lawyer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turtleblossom (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:45 PM

5. They know who butters their bread.

They really have no redeeming character. Utterly forgettable bench warmers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turtleblossom (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 07:07 PM

8. Alito actually said that he would DENY relief.

I didn’t expect that.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turtleblossom (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 07:26 PM

10. they didn't

they just said we'd have let them file, and then denied their claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:43 PM

3. Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 06:53 PM

6. No "judicially cognizable interest" not exactly a smackdown of "seditious abuse"

So the SC stood for the Constitution without acknowledging the intent to overturn the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 07:00 PM

7. Sorta like, kicked the can down the road.?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DEbluedude (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 07:25 PM

9. First they'd have to find the can

No standing. They'd consider something more if something adverse to all citizens of TX were found? But it sounds like a dead end to me. A state has no investigatory powers in other states' elections, so no evidence. If you sue blue because the voters or state didn't vote red ... you're harming blue everywhere. It's a zero sum game. Ballots are secret for good reasons, and the best we can do, like accounting, is to have systems and ledgers and backups and methods that have public accountability. It doesn't need to involve an election witch hunt. That's how I see it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread