Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.
No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.
https://t.co/AbyzT3aY4n
It looks like we have a new leader in the \u201ccraziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election\u201d category:
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) December 8, 2020
The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS.
(Spoiler alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.) pic.twitter.com/2L4GmdCB6I
Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
This breaks the prior record for the one dumbest thing that could have been done this election. By far.
Also, more people need to mess with Texas. Messing with Texas should be the new national pastime.
FFS, Texas. You're not just taking a big old dump on our entire system of government. You're doing it with writing this bad?
Kindly - and I say this with all due respect - GROW UP.
https://t.co/s4G1N6QW0f
Fair enough. The opening is pretty funny though, if you like high school debating societies. pic.twitter.com/XAFQE2GRdt
— Arieh Kovler (@ariehkovler) December 8, 2020
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 Politics
We’ve been getting calls and outreach from Queens residents all day about this.
The community’s response? Outrage.
Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.
When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?
Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.
Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.
We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.
It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.
The community’s response? Outrage.
Amazon will divide its second headquarters evenly between New York's Long Island City and Arlington County's Crystal City neighborhoods. Other cities may also receive major sites. https://t.co/c1lKmeQinX
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) November 13, 2018
Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.
When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?
Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.
Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.
We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.
It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.
Here's why I bother to do the search, and even take the time to check.
This is part of a pattern that as detailed by Mueller, and has been proven by reputable studies since then. Here are parts of an Oxford report on the goals of the ongoing social media operations of Russia. https://t.co/qapD8Eh2SQ
https://t.co/nJPPOwF1MA
The full report can be found here.
https://t.co/1q525xWYZE
Excertps from the 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Actove Measures Campaigns and Interference:
Also form the Senate Intelligence Committee report
This is part of a pattern that as detailed by Mueller, and has been proven by reputable studies since then. Here are parts of an Oxford report on the goals of the ongoing social media operations of Russia. https://t.co/qapD8Eh2SQ
Here's some from a search of your TL
— \U0001d679\U0001d698\U0001d691\U0001d697 \U0001d686\U0001d68e\U0001d69c\U0001d695\U0001d68e\U0001d6a2 (@thepalemoonlt) April 21, 2021
Uses of the word prison before today: 13.
Tweets for specifically suggesting abolishing prison prior to today: 1 on 06/03/2020
Mentions of prison and abolishing it today: 8
Of all the times to speak out, Why did you choose to now? https://t.co/kl7gx7ky2H
https://t.co/nJPPOwF1MA
The full report can be found here.
https://t.co/1q525xWYZE
Excertps from the 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian Actove Measures Campaigns and Interference:
Also form the Senate Intelligence Committee report
