LOLOL. They just keep finding new ways to screw up
Here's the motion to expedite, my disaster-tourist #Squidigation fan friends

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
Sid and Lin finally noticed that the briefing schedule wasn't going to work. Of course, the Court won't act on their idiocy anyway.

I also love the suggestion that maybe Congress will just pass on confirming the election of President Biden (or anyone)
Oh, you crazy kids
Yes, you read that correctly. Powell and Wood are asking the Court to consolidate their two docketed cases with their two *undocketed* petitions that they somehow screwed up the filing of.

This is not a thing.
Two problems: 1) Cases have to *exist* in order to be consolidated, and the cases don't exist until they're docketed

2) They didn't bother submitting copies of the Petitions, so the court couldn't review them and say "hey, let's consider these together" even if it wanted to
"Look, your Honors, we're not suggesting that the clerks' office is part of the deep state/chavista/globalist plot against Trump. Yet. But we will if you make us"

"OK, maybe we screwed up. But I'm sure we can fix it if you let us. And expedite that, without seeing it!"
There's brazenness. There's stupidity.

I don't think words have yet been invented to describe telling the Supreme Court that a "Republican slate of electors" voted in Michigan while citing a report that says "The GOP legislature refused to appoint alternate electors"
Like seriously, what do we even call that ish?
I kind of feel like if you're going to say "a group of people declaring themselves electors without the process required by existing state law and without even a vote of the legislature means there are now 'competing slates', legally," you should include a fucking citation
I mean, I don't care to what. Cite a law review article. A thinkpiece. Spyder's Electionlaw blog. But cite SOMETHING
Again, this might be an area where you'd like a citation for the claim that the legislatures authorized this. Typically, you'd cite a legislative document recording the vote. The fact that doesn't exist is a miiiiiiiiiinor problem here
Also, can you at least TRY to reconcile this with the fact that your earlier citation expressly said "the Michigan legislature refused to do this" and you said that they were blocked from even entering the building?
(The answer, btw, is "no". It's impossible to even try to reconcile that)
"The courts below evaluated the evidence incorrectly" is not a claim that SCOTUS will review.

"Four separate courts, in four different states, all got the evidence wrong in exactly the same way" is not going to make that more likely
"We're really surprised and disappointed by the outcome" remains a claim that courts will not give two shits about
As of this point, they've gone three full pages of "background facts" without a citation to the record. And almost two pages without a citation to *anything*
For my non-lawyer friends: When you are making factual arguments to a court, this is, um, VERY not how you do it.

You need to provide evidentiary (if to a trial court) or record (if on appeal) support for every factual claim. You can't just say stuff. They're just saying stuff.
Aside from the fact that the Ramsland report is just epically bad and useless, technically, that is NOT "supplemental authority"; what you're actually trying to do is supplement the record with new information on appeal, which, again, is NOT A THING
Here's their proposed schedule. Considering this motion was just made today, they're asking that they get more time on REPLY than the respondents would have to file opposition papers
The extent to which these maroons appear to have left the bonds of earth and reality behind is just breathtaking.

And all-encompassing. Like, being a conspiracy nut doesn't require you to be this stupid about scheduling, but by God, they'll do it anyway
And the wrap up: Don't do this for *us*, Court. We're doing this for you!
Live look at Sydney Powell

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Akiva Cohen

Akiva Cohen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AkivaMCohen

20 Dec
ahahahahahahahahahahahah *deep breath, repeat ad infinitum*

They are appealing their trio of losses in Pennsylvania to the US Supreme Court. Cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 23, November 17, and OCTOBER 23 Image
The argument in all three cases is identical: Bush v. Gore says that you can overrule the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on issues of Pennsylvania election law Image
They waited until a month and a half after the election, and until after the Electors had voted, to file a petition asking SCOTUS to review.

Despite one of these cases having been decided a week and a half BEFORE the election
Read 12 tweets
20 Dec
You are ignoring that there's a push-pull between "death prevention" and "spread prevention" in the vaccine roll out and that vaccinating younger people will do more to mitigate spread than vaccinating older people.

Preexisting conditions may simply shift the balance
In other words: vaccinating the elderly? Mitigates deaths way more than spread.

The healthy young? Mitigates spread way more than deaths

Younger people with preexisting conditions? Mitigates death (more than healthy young, less than elderly) AND spread (vice versa)
But yes, @NateSilver538, you've reviewed the data from the research, therefore you have the skills to understand how that data should translate into prioritization decisions in a vaccine roll out
Read 5 tweets
20 Dec
Seriously people. Executive orders mean exactly nothing to what Trump legally can or can't do to fuck with the election results (which is zero). Stop letting idiots make you crazy
There are two very simple, very basic reasons executive orders are meaningless here. Understand them, please
1) the president cannot issue an executive order that grants himself a power he does not already have. For example, the president could not issue an executive order saying that from now on he can make laws they don't need to pass Congress
Read 9 tweets
17 Dec
This is a catch-22. And yes, I see your "pay people more" answer, but nobody gets paid for this stuff directly and paying people for committee service (as a baseline) would quickly have real budgetary impact given the number of committees. There aren't always perfect solutions
This also seems to assume that everyone serving on any committee is in a better socioeconomic position than any female or POC colleague could be, which is obviously unlikely to be true. There are likely overworked white guys on any given committee who say yes anyway because
(pick 1) they think it's important; they think it's good for their career long term; they don't feel comfortable saying no.

That may be a real problem, but we can't solve all problems simultaneously. And sometimes dealing with one exacerbates another.
Read 4 tweets
15 Dec
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

*pauses for breath*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *ad infinitum*.

Y'all.

Y'all ...

I cannot. I just cannot
"Debate me" hero of free speech, Dan Ravicher, has blocked me.
For *checks notes* saying his election tweet aged like milk and *offering to take him up on his challenge to debate him for 20K to charity*
Read 4 tweets
15 Dec
OK. I promised you a thread on the Wisconsin dissents, so here it is. Tl;dr: They are bad and their authors should feel bad

First, a quick spin through the majority/concurrences
The majority opinion was written by Brian Hagedorn, who joined the Wisconsin Supreme Court after serving as Chief Legal Counsel to Republican Governor Scott Walker. He also wrote a concurrence to his own majority opinion which ... um ... I've never seen before
In fact, let's ask some of the appellate specialists if this is just me not knowing enough. Hey, @RMFifthCircuit, @MatthewStiegler, @CecereCarl - you ever see a judge write a concurrence to his own majority opinion before yesterday?
Read 96 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!