Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Franklin

It will be interesting to see if the court grants leave to appeal. I have been pretty negative about all this all the way along as no one has proved fraud or other accusation in a court to a point that will change the election. This case is not about fraud but I am not very optimistic based on what a lot of legal pundits are saying.

I suspect the court will make its decision quite quickly on whether to allow the appeal once the respondents get their submission in to the Court by Thursday.


65 posted on 12/09/2020 2:22:11 PM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: hawkaw; RummyChick
It will be interesting to see if the court grants leave to appeal.

This is the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction if it agrees that a state is a party to a legal claim against it. No leave to appeal is needed, although SCOTUS typically frequently declines to excercise its orginal jurisdiction in less important cases like prisoners' habeas corpus applications. As I read Article III regarding SCOTUS's original jurisdiction, even if Texas and the other states lack standing, but Trump clearly does, his claims can be haard by SCOTUS through it original jurisdiction.

There was a reason that Trump himself did not file suits in the lower courts where hostile judges could prejudice his claims. There was a plan here to do this from the start. Normally, when hearing cases like this, SCOTUS will appoint a retired judge or justice to act as a special master to hear testimony. Depositions and exhibits from lower courts can be referenced as well.

WE ARE WATCHING HISTORY UNFOLD BEFORE US!
75 posted on 12/09/2020 2:40:28 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

To: hawkaw

“””This case is not about fraud”””


Illegally changing the election rules is not fraud?


87 posted on 12/09/2020 2:57:56 PM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

To: hawkaw
Not all legal pundits agree with this case. It is interesting to read their opinions and compare, somewhat like being on a jury. For example, Steve Vladeck, professor of Law at University of Texas School of Law, is not a fan as described in his Hot Take 17 states and Trump join Texas' lawsuit. It's still a doomed Supreme Court stunt opinion piece.

It is educational to read viewpoints from both sides.

99 posted on 12/09/2020 3:16:39 PM PST by tarpit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

To: hawkaw

This is not an appeal. It’s a case where SCOTUS has sole and original jurisdiction. There is no point in all your negative posts, especially where they are based on your misunderstanding of what’s going on.


167 posted on 12/09/2020 6:32:00 PM PST by KevinB (Quite literally, whatever the Left touches it ruins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

To: hawkaw

Its not an appeal.Its an original case.

You cab read the pleadings here.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf


174 posted on 12/09/2020 7:12:03 PM PST by Candor7 ((Obama Fascism:http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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