USA next President Donald or Joe?

Something that mystifies me - is Trump, his legal teams , Republican politicians and the supporters all so clueless as to how the law works? Despite the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday surrounding the Texas lawsuit, they are still of the opinion "this is not over", and Giuliani says the SC has got it wrong.

MAGA supporters, any thoughts?

Chris van Buuren wrote: It's a pity this thread has jumped the shark now.
I've enjoyed both sides of the proverbial isle commenting here but now it has degraded, like it almost always does into a slobber knocker.

I'm trying to find a forum where I can discuss south African politics with my American neighbors but they don't want to bite 😂😂😂

You're correct, Chris. Started off as banter, but may have gone a bit too far.

I apologies for my part, guys.

bayern wrote: Something that mystifies me - is Trump, his legal teams , Republican politicians and the supporters all so clueless as to how the law works? Despite the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday surrounding the Texas lawsuit, they are still of the opinion "this is not over", and Giuliani says the SC has got it wrong.

MAGA supporters, any thoughts?

Bayern, i also am lost here. Will wait and see what happens next.

Lionel wrote:

bayern wrote: Something that mystifies me - is Trump, his legal teams , Republican politicians and the supporters all so clueless as to how the law works? Despite the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday surrounding the Texas lawsuit, they are still of the opinion "this is not over", and Giuliani says the SC has got it wrong.

MAGA supporters, any thoughts?

Bayern, i also am lost here. Will wait and see what happens next.

Think it's fair to say that certain landmark moments in the election process have come and gone, Trump, his legal team and the supporters have failed to reverse or overturn anything. I think they've lost (about) 99.9% of the Federal court lawsuits, and Friday's big smack-down by the Supreme Court, should be a clear message that this is going nowhere. The Safe Harbor deadline (Dec, 08) has come and gone, and the election results have been certified by the States. Tomorrow the electors vote in their States. Surely there is no undiscovered avenue which will come to light which will enhance Trump's chances of staying in office? Amongst Trump, his legal teams and 71 or 74 Million supporters surely if there was an answer to overturn the election, someone would have come up with it or found it by now?

The SC didn't want to get involved. They voted not to even hear the case.

Anyway, let's see what lies ahead.
Unprecedented times indeed. We get to experience it firsthand.

Lionel wrote: The SC didn't want to get involved. They voted not to even hear the case.

Anyway, let's see what lies ahead.
Unprecedented times indeed. We get to experience it firsthand.

Is that because they don't understand the Law or misunderstanding of the Constitution (Texas, Trump, etc)?

The SC dismissed the case because Texas lacked standing to challenge the (other) States elections. The Presidential election in the US is not a single nationwide unitary event. In reality it is conducted as a series of 51 separate elections.

So the SC held that it lacked jurisdiction over Texas' challenge because it said the State of Texas didn't have a legal interest in how other states went about conducting their Presidential election and whether there were violation of other States laws or even violations of the Constitution by those other States.

The SC refused to hear the case because of the Texas lack of standing to pursue the types of legal issues that it had sort to raise.

Now that's my point, surely they had to "bounce" this off lawyers and or Constitutional experts to see if this carried weight.

You know what i find odd. Jay Sekulow who defended Trump in the Impeachment hearing, if he thought any of these challenges had any merit of succeeding, why didn't he take this up on Trump's behalf, this chap is sharp.

What is "Standing"?

This “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing has three elements:
(1) the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury;
(2) that injury is fairly traceable to actions of the defendant; and
(3) it must be likely—not merely speculative—that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Remember its all about how one interprets the law. The SC Justices saw it the way they saw it.

Jordan Sekulow, Jay's son, was part of Trumps team.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, appears to be defying her party's leadership again as she introduced a law mandating medical care for infants who survive abortions, a measure that appeared to be similar to one her party blocked earlier this year.

An Executive order from President Trump grants protection to babies who SURVIVE abortions and also orders doctors to provide them with necessary medical care.

I'll leave it at that.

Lionel wrote: What is "Standing"?

This “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing has three elements:
(1) the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury;
(2) that injury is fairly traceable to actions of the defendant; and
(3) it must be likely—not merely speculative—that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Remember its all about how one interprets the law. The SC Justices saw it the way they saw it.

Jordan Sekulow, Jay's son, was part of Trumps team.

Standing = basis.

How was Texas affected (injured) by the actions of the 4 other states, and what laws were violated? Not sure whether Texas has the mail-in voting option, however if they do not, there was nothing stopping them from voting that way. Don't know how else to explain this. Apparently most Republicans who signed onto this case all knew it was a long shot, but they signed it as a show of support for Trump, and some out of fear of retribution from him.

Regards Jay Sekulow, he served as the outside lead Council for Trump in the Impeachment trial, I am certain of that, and you can look it up. Not sure what capacity Jordan Sekulow served, if indeed he was part of the team :-

Watch this :-

Scary but funny....wow....

mr hawaii wrote:

Scary but funny....wow....

The problem with prayers, if there is a Divine Plan in place, you are messing up the plan by asking for a favour.

On a serious note, if this Divine Entity does exist, how does S/He, It, decide who's prayers/request to answer?