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.

*My patience level is not ginormous today. Please don't try to explain to me why you think it isn't stupid for whatever other reasons because I'll be making liberal use of the airlock. Thx.
2: Yes, one state can sue another at the US Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court gets to decide whether to take the case. One factor that they will **undoubtedly** look at is the factor of "injury."
Texas is claiming two things. First, that the states have a special interest in who becomes Vice President because of the tiebreaker. Second, that their electors are injured if their votes are "diluted" by electors from states that, in Texas's view, didn't obey their own law.
There is very little argument presented for "injury." Even less - barely a paragraph - was presented for how the defendant states caused that injury.

For lawyers, this is a signal that this is a performance of politics by "litigation" and not a serious effort.
Nonlawyers - who are the audience for this drek - may be impressed by the arguments about how other states violated their own laws.

Lawyers - at least competent ones - will zero in on the alleged injury and the evidence that the injury was caused by the defendant states.
Why? Simple.

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.
This applies to states, too.

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.
Simply put, @JohnFetterman has a better ability to bring a court case against @DanPatrick to recover 2 million dollars in Sheetz gift cards for showing proof of election fraud than the state of Texas has to bring a case against Pennsylvania over the election.
This lawsuit is Texas taking a dump on the rest of the Republic and I'm angry as all hell that those- those people have chosen to do this.

I am not worried in the least about the case.
PS - Akiva looks to be at least as pissed off as I am, and he's being pissed off in more detail.

https://t.co/QRIBlW6qf6
And it's being picked apart here in even more exquisite detail.

I'll let them take it. I looked at the injury section and then deleted the download.

https://t.co/ipbla8ose4
Seriously:
The Republican Party, as a whole, is a clear and present danger to the viability of the Republic.

More from Mike Dunford

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.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

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 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.
Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.

As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."

That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.


What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.

So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.

For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.

A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
OK. The Teams meeting that I unsuccessfully evaded (and which was actually a lot of fun and I'm really genuinely happy I was reminded to attend) is over, so let's take another swing at looking at the latest filings from in re Gondor.


As far as I can tell from the docket, this is the FOURTH attempt in a week to get a TRO; the question the judge will ask if they ever figure out how to get the judge's attention will be "couldn't you have served by now;" and this whole thing is a

The memorandum in support of this one is 9 pages, and should go pretty quick.

But they still haven't figured out widow/orphan issues.

https://t.co/l7EDatDudy


It appears that the opening of this particular filing is going to proceed on the theme of "we are big mad at @SollenbergerRC" which is totally something relevant when you are asking a District Court to temporarily annihilate the US Government on an ex parte basis.


Also, if they didn't want their case to be known as "in re Gondor" they really shouldn't have gone with the (non-literary) "Gondor has no king" quote.

More from Court

Incelmute roflmfao


Hi


Awesome holocaust denial joke you got there, incelmute.

https://t.co/gT9TCpmbiC


I'm starting to think incelmute may have an antisemitism problem.


Somebody tell frosty
In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary

Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.

https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc


Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.

Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460

You May Also Like

कुंडली में 12 भाव होते हैं। कैसे ज्योतिष द्वारा रोग के आंकलन करते समय कुंडली के विभिन्न भावों से गणना करते हैं आज इस पर चर्चा करेंगे।
कुण्डली को कालपुरुष की संज्ञा देकर इसमें शरीर के अंगों को स्थापित कर उनसे रोग, रोगेश, रोग को बढ़ाने घटाने वाले ग्रह


रोग की स्थिति में उत्प्रेरक का कार्य करने वाले ग्रह, आयुर्वेदिक/ऐलोपैथी/होमियोपैथी में से कौन कारगर होगा इसका आँकलन, रक्त विकार, रक्त और आपरेशन की स्थिति, कौन सा आंतरिक या बाहरी अंग प्रभावित होगा इत्यादि गणना करने में कुंडली का प्रयोग किया जाता है।


मेडिकल ज्योतिष में आज के समय में Dr. K. S. Charak का नाम निर्विवाद रूप से प्रथम स्थान रखता है। उनकी लिखी कई पुस्तकें आज इस क्षेत्र में नए ज्योतिषों का मार्गदर्शन कर रही हैं।
प्रथम भाव -
इस भाव से हम व्यक्ति की रोगप्रतिरोधक क्षमता, सिर, मष्तिस्क का विचार करते हैं।


द्वितीय भाव-
दाहिना नेत्र, मुख, वाणी, नाक, गर्दन व गले के ऊपरी भाग का विचार होता है।
तृतीय भाव-
अस्थि, गला,कान, हाथ, कंधे व छाती के आंतरिक अंगों का शुरुआती भाग इत्यादि।

चतुर्थ भाव- छाती व इसके आंतरिक अंग, जातक की मानसिक स्थिति/प्रकृति, स्तन आदि की गणना की जाती है


पंचम भाव-
जातक की बुद्धि व उसकी तीव्रता,पीठ, पसलियां,पेट, हृदय की स्थिति आंकलन में प्रयोग होता है।

षष्ठ भाव-
रोग भाव कहा जाता है। कुंडली मे इसके तत्कालिक भाव स्वामी, कालपुरुष कुंडली के स्वामी, दृष्टि संबंध, रोगेश की स्थिति, रोगेश के नक्षत्र औऱ रोगेश व भाव की डिग्री इत्यादि।