Texas - WTF is this even - a very short reassurance thread:
1: The Texas "lawusit" against four other "battleground" states in the United States Supreme Court is legally stupid.* It is so legally stupid that I was reluctant to believe that even Ken Paxton would file it.
For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.
Lawyers - at least competent ones - will zero in on the alleged injury and the evidence that the injury was caused by the defendant states.
Courts care about how the person bringing the complaint was allegedly harmed by the person being sued. If there's not a harm you can sue over and/or you can't show how the person you are suing caused that harm, You Have No Case.
The motion for leave to file doesn't seem to allege an actual injury that courts address, and doesn't really allege how the state in question caused that injury.
I am not worried in the least about the case.
https://t.co/QRIBlW6qf6
Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) December 8, 2020
Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).
I'll let them take it. I looked at the injury section and then deleted the download.
https://t.co/ipbla8ose4
I *do* want to pick it apart!
— Actually malicious, no actual malice (@apark2453) December 8, 2020
And... Wow. This is art.
154 pages.
One entry on the table of contents: "Motion for leave... page 1".
1/ https://t.co/PgNRwnpxKY pic.twitter.com/b89qpCFRp5
More from Mike Dunford
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
More from Court
1/It seems apparent that the rulings in my case & was the Travis judiciary has allowed/ignored us related to the fear/coercion of #AlexJones and of his audience and employees who harassJudges & jurors.
.@FBI pls investigate the 3.07 violations, donations & defamation/slander..
2/I am aware that such coercion & perception has had real impact on my children’s lives & these cases Alex files against me.
Alex’s counsel has threatened me “accidentally” & tells my representation & others lies to coerce them to stay on team good-ol-boy$.
3/Why doesn’t the Court protect my kids? I filed a Temporary Restraining Order before the Thanksgiving that any judge should immediately grant: #AlexJones publicly intoxicated/getting wasted while he is enjoined (disallowed to) drink while he has my kids. The Court must fear him
4/No judge may be persuaded by coercion or benefits of ruling the way their main donors demand. No litigant can coerce judges or witnesses. Witness tampering very clear, documented by probative evidence as fraud in Alex’s lawsuits against me. .@fbi investigate pls
.@FBI pls investigate the 3.07 violations, donations & defamation/slander..
Totally agree about @FBI
— LongTime\U0001f913FirstTime\U0001f469\u200d\U0001f4bb (@LongTimeAmy) May 1, 2020
What #AlexJones says on #Infowars doesn't just stay on the internet. It incites violence IRL!
See how former InfoWars guest host, Owen Benjamin, parrots Alex Jones rhetoric on premeditated murder!?!https://t.co/U1HiqGg7XU
2/I am aware that such coercion & perception has had real impact on my children’s lives & these cases Alex files against me.
Alex’s counsel has threatened me “accidentally” & tells my representation & others lies to coerce them to stay on team good-ol-boy$.
3/Why doesn’t the Court protect my kids? I filed a Temporary Restraining Order before the Thanksgiving that any judge should immediately grant: #AlexJones publicly intoxicated/getting wasted while he is enjoined (disallowed to) drink while he has my kids. The Court must fear him
4/No judge may be persuaded by coercion or benefits of ruling the way their main donors demand. No litigant can coerce judges or witnesses. Witness tampering very clear, documented by probative evidence as fraud in Alex’s lawsuits against me. .@fbi investigate pls
so @tedwheeler did you hear? today we are discussing "public whippings" thanks to @JamesBuchal
its a great chance to study the history of public beatings.
understandably, women feel threatened. https://t.co/jck05JGM4B
#PDX #tourism
FIRST OREGON WIFE-BEATER TO RECEIVE WHIPPING POST PUNISHMENT
https://t.co/3SJOODbuLf
PORTLAND. Or., June 7—The whipping post law passed at the last session of the Legislature was Into execution for the first time today, the victim being Charles Mcdlnty, convicted of wlfe-beatlng
whip was a braided blacksnake, made of rawhide, with four lashes. ..hustled to jail, stripped to the
waist, manacled, and his hands tied to the door high above his head. The whipping was as severe as the powerful deputy was capable of administering. Blood drawn on the 4th blow.
its a great chance to study the history of public beatings.
understandably, women feel threatened. https://t.co/jck05JGM4B
#PDX #tourism
@MultCoDA https://t.co/GgR1rCGIdG @OregonStateBar @BrentWeisberg @USAO_OR
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) November 28, 2020
Even if this is a "joke" or a drunk tweet, it appears that he is inciting gender-based violence on a woman via Twitter@twittersupport pic.twitter.com/TcaBiQ2wvU
FIRST OREGON WIFE-BEATER TO RECEIVE WHIPPING POST PUNISHMENT
https://t.co/3SJOODbuLf
PORTLAND. Or., June 7—The whipping post law passed at the last session of the Legislature was Into execution for the first time today, the victim being Charles Mcdlnty, convicted of wlfe-beatlng
whip was a braided blacksnake, made of rawhide, with four lashes. ..hustled to jail, stripped to the
waist, manacled, and his hands tied to the door high above his head. The whipping was as severe as the powerful deputy was capable of administering. Blood drawn on the 4th blow.
You May Also Like
MDZS is laden with buddhist references. As a South Asian person, and history buff, it is so interesting to see how Buddhism, which originated from India, migrated, flourished & changed in the context of China. Here's some research (🙏🏼 @starkjeon for CN insight + citations)
1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)
2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).
These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.
Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.
3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)
1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)
2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).
These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.
Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.
3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)
