Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Just arrived at our DC bureau. Sources telling me that SCOTUS is expected to announce today that they will not hear the Texas case.
Twitter ^ | 12/11/2020 | Amanda Head

Posted on 12/11/2020 10:10:47 AM PST by ObozoMustGo2012

"Just arrived at our DC bureau. Sources telling me that SCOTUS is expected to announce today that they will not hear the Texas case.

I have never so fervently wanted to be proven wrong in my life, but we’ll see."


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: rumor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-219 last
To: ought-six
".... SCOTUS is not going to reverse the election...."

Of course they won't reverse the election. That's not what they do.

But this a constitutional case where they could rule that the existing certified electors are tainted because they were selected by a process that violated the state's election laws and, in turn, the US Constitution.

That would require each state's legislature to select a new slate of electors, different from the ones certified from the tainted elections. Or not.

There are 62 electoral votes between the four defendant states. If all four states selected new electors, that would be enough to put either Trump or Biden over the 270 finish line. If the legislatures came up with none or only part of the total electors, then there may or may not be enough votes to to give one of the candidates 270, depending on the number of electors they picked.

If there weren't enough electors selected to give either of the candidates the win or there was a tie at 270 each, then the whole mess would go to the state delegations in the House to finally decide the race. Each state delegation in the House gets one vote and currently, the Republicans, and therefore by extension, have the majority of the delegations Trump would win.

So, yes, I agree, the USSC won't reverse the election. But their ruling and the resulting machinations of the state legislatures and/or the House, could very well reverse the election. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

201 posted on 12/11/2020 4:04:15 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

“But their ruling and the resulting machinations of the state legislatures and/or the House, could very well reverse the election.”

Not a chance. Sad, but true.


202 posted on 12/11/2020 4:06:45 PM PST by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: ought-six; All
Why are there so many pessimists on this site?

You have no basis for making a statement with the absolute negative certainty that you did, "not a chance", without a reason.

Why is that?

203 posted on 12/11/2020 4:23:06 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Fury; All
".... There's no mechanism for declaring martial law given the circumstances in the tweet he re-tweeted...."

"....Martial law can be imposed when civil rule fails, temporarily being replaced with military authority in a time of crisis. Though rare, there have been a number of notable U.S. cases where martial law came into play, including in times of war, natural disaster and civic dispute...."

"....While no precise definition of martial law exists, a precedent for it exists wherein, “certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of habeas corpus [the right to a trial before imprisonment] may be suspended..."

"....Martial law may be declared by both the president and by Congress. State officials may also declare martial law, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, however, 'their actions under the declaration must abide by the U.S. Constitution and are subject to review in federal court'...."

"....Throughout the course of U.S. history, federal and state officials have declared martial law at least 68 times...."

More information at source link:

How the president could invoke martial law

204 posted on 12/11/2020 4:49:40 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

I was referring to specifically the tweet that General Flynn re-tweeted.

If President Trump “invokes” martial law under those circumstances, I believe the House would move to impeach and the Senate to convict.


205 posted on 12/11/2020 4:52:47 PM PST by Fury (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Fury
I was out in the barn trying to repair my hay bailer all afternoon and didn't see what Flynn tweeted. I missed it.

What was the context? Maybe you could share it with me.

Thanks.

206 posted on 12/11/2020 4:58:24 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Fury

And the state militias will take care of it then...


207 posted on 12/11/2020 5:00:08 PM PST by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

Civil dispute has already started... Antifa is torching villages and setting up autonomous zones


208 posted on 12/11/2020 5:01:18 PM PST by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

It was the tweet by We The People that General Flynn re-tweeted. This occurred about 7-10 days ago, maybe?

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/12/02/calls-for-martial-law-and-us-military-oversight-of-new-presidential-elections-draws-criticism/


209 posted on 12/11/2020 5:01:35 PM PST by Fury (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Fury

Gotcha. Thanks.


210 posted on 12/11/2020 5:08:28 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: surrey

When she snapped to with the George Floyd line of questioning. She spewed out the obligatory “woke” response that she was weeping for the saintly St. George of Kirby before there has even been a trial and accepting the democrat lies. I don’t trust her one bit.


211 posted on 12/11/2020 6:16:41 PM PST by Organic Panic (Flinging poo is not a valid argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: surrey

.... I just read. ALL THREE of Trump’s judges refused to hear the Texas case....

they are all swamp creatures and will do as they are commanded to do to protect the DC elites.


212 posted on 12/11/2020 6:25:49 PM PST by Organic Panic (Flinging poo is not a valid argument)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt
If the legislatures came up with none or only part of the total electors, then there may or may not be enough votes to to give one of the candidates 270, depending on the number of electors they picked.

depends...no state will want to be tagged as having no electors. If that should happen, then 270 is not the number.
the Constitution covers it...Article II, Section 1, and the 12th amendment:
"...The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;..."

Let's say, PA does not have any electors appointed. Instead of 538, the count is now 518, so 260 would be the number. Biden still covers.

Now, what happens if PA has appointed electors but they are rejected by Congress during the count? Is the number 270? looks like it...Biden still covers...but who knows.

213 posted on 12/11/2020 6:41:20 PM PST by stylin19a ( 2016 - Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
Thanks but it all appears moot now that the SC has said no to Texas.

Talk about being bummed.

214 posted on 12/11/2020 6:51:16 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

Seems that way...more doors getting slammed in our face before we can get a foot in the door.


215 posted on 12/11/2020 9:40:09 PM PST by stylin19a ( 2016 - Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
I still hold out hope that Trump will pull this out of the bag.

Seems like the entire universe of opposition forces are arrayed against him, except his supporters. He is doing this alone.

I feel compelled to stick with him because he will never give up. Neither will I.

But boy am I bummed.

216 posted on 12/11/2020 10:00:33 PM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt

“You have no basis for making a statement with the absolute negative certainty that you did, “not a chance”, without a reason. Why is that?”

Because there are not enough legislatures who would do what you suggest. Throw it to the HoR? Trump would never get a majority of states to re-elect him. Politicians are the most selfish of human creatures, and — with the rarest of exceptions — they will always put themselves and their own interests ahead of their constituents. Just think: Why do so many barely-sentient miscreants fight like hell to get elected to public office? For one simple reason: They seek to enrich themselves at the public’s expense.

Mark Twain had it right: “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” I posit that Twain was only partially right, because his criticism would apply to politicians in general.


217 posted on 12/12/2020 6:17:51 AM PST by ought-six (Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
Your are probably right. I'll concede your point.

I am just an eternal optimist. Without optimism there is no hope. Without hope, what's the point?

But now that the SC has declined to hear Texas's lawsuit, we're down to slim and none.

I still think Trump can pull this out of the bag. Why? Because he says he will and he is the only person in power I believe anymore. The rest of them are just as you describe.

Boy, am I bummed, just like many others are right now.

Thanks for responding.

218 posted on 12/12/2020 8:45:48 AM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: ObozoMustGo2012

Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.


219 posted on 12/12/2020 7:27:14 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-219 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson