Posted on 12/10/2020 9:22:59 AM PST by tarpit
.The Intervening States Satisfy the Requirements for Intervention As of Right.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides: “On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who ... (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The Intervening States satisfy the standards to intervene in this action as of right. First, the Intervening States’ Motion is unquestionably timely. They filed this Motion to Intervene within three days of the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, and within two days of receiving notice of the Motion. In addition, the Bill of Complaint has not yet been filed, and the Intervening States seek leave to join it as soon as it is filed. Accordingly, the request for intervention is filed at the case’s earliest possible procedural juncture. See Arizona v.California, 460 U.S. 605, 615 (1983) (permitting intervention when no adverse party could show how its interests “would be prejudiced or this litigation unduly delayed”).
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Missouri, Arkansas, Lousiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah request permission to join as “parties” to the Texas case.
I guess this means that game on!. Let’s hope that the rule of law prevails.
from the bleachers, appears to be a significant step forward and indicating SC interest inf and anticipation of a hearing
Or is this one and the same thing?
To me this implies that the case is solid and other states believe that it will be successful.
If we can get 26 states or more to join this, I don’t think there would be much for SCOTUS to do other than accept the lawsuit.
It’s constitutional. To argue this is to be against the laws of the United States. This should be disseminated to the ABA for their comments. I would be curious to see what other than the 1500 leftist attorneys who are against everything constitutional think.
nice
Reminder: a number of legal scholars have opined that SCOTUS will deny this case. We shall see.
Even Mark Levin is saying the SCOTUS will punt the case. This is a nerve wracking day.
I agree that 1/2 states plus one is a strong stance, but Texas alone should have the standing to bring the suit. The citizens of Texas' votes count just as much as the citizens of any other state.
That said, 20 states is good...real good...let's pray for 26.
If they deny it, THEN it’s game on!
I thought other states were just friends of the court, that actually joining in with Texas will slow things down?
We will be heard.
i would hope that all states would join to see the integrity of the elections maintained... i emailed governor Hogan to man up and join with Texas for the rule of law and due process.
i do not think he will.
“Even Mark Levin is saying the SCOTUS will punt the case. “
Levin has been wrong before. He was as anti-Trump as anyone 4 years ago. I would take Cruz’ opinion on the SC over Levin’s anyday.
Why do you go from thread to thread saying the same thing? Getting paid?
Boomers can’t mount an army sufficient to last longer than the dosage of their prescriptions. The “revolution” fails in reality.
Then election laws don’t matter.
The only way to win going forward is to out cheat the RATs.
In this situation, I would call such a response by SCOTUS “dereliction of duty”.
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.