Trump campaign says it is filing second Supreme Court petition, this time challenging the election result in Wisconsin. The other one is challenging the election result in Pennsylvania
Campaign says it is asking for the case to be decided by Jan 6
The Supreme Court has yet to act on the Pennsylvania petition, including the first step of asking the other side to respond
It seems highly unlikely the Supreme Court would at this point take up these cases or that it will act on them by Jan 6, or even Inauguration Day for that matter
One difference in the two Trump petitions: The PA one says the petitioner is solely the Trump campaign, while the WI one says that Trump and Pence as individuals are also petitioners
Note; the last time Trump filed at SCOTUS it didn't actually show up on the court docket until several days later
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood, who has an election-related petition pending at the Supreme Court, has been posting a lot of weird tweets about Chief Justice Roberts (which I’m not linking to) that among other things appear to reference a conspiracy about Roberts' children
(deleted old version to make clear whose children I was talking about)
Somehow I don't think spreading conspiracy theories about the Chief Justice is considered a useful tactic for those hoping their case will be heard by the Supreme Court
Trump administration says the Supreme Court should take up a case filed directly at the court by the state of Texas challenging a California law that bars state-funded travel to states deemed to be anti-LGBT
The California law "transgresses constitutional principles that are designed to bind the States together
in a single Union," the Trump administration says supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…
The California law aimed at combating discrimination does in fact discriminate, Trump DOJ says. Against commerce
Even as the Supreme Court has weakened the ability of people to bring civil rights claims under the 4th Amendment by creating & strengthening qualified immunity, the justices in certain cases during the War on Drugs era also weakened 4th Amendment protections in criminal cases
The Supreme Court made it easier for cops to stop and search people in a variety of contexts, with the underlying justification for the search often being suspicion of drug possession
In a 2016 dissent when the court expanded the ability to police to collect evidence when the stop was illegal, liberal Justice Sotomayor weighed in, noting: "it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny."
Black Americans are routinely targeted by police in encounters that can escalate into violence. The final part of our @Reuters series on QUALIFIED IMMUNITY shows how it often cuts off one of the few avenues Black people have when seeking accountability: reut.rs/3hgxUOq
@Reuters Read about Luke Stewart, Clayton Dobbins & Shase Howse, three unarmed Black men who suffered violence at the hands of police. In all these cases, the cops were cleared of wrongdoing, faced no criminal charges and were granted qualified immunity in the resulting civil rights cases
@Reuters The irony is that the federal civil rights law that people use to sue the police was enacted after the Civil War to address violence against Black people
This White House announcement of clemency doesn't really tell the story of how these men were convicted of the massacre of Iraqi civilians while working as Blackwater contractors
Pardons in full: "two people convicted in the special counsel’s Russia inquiry, four Blackwater guards convicted in connection with the killing of Iraqi civilians and three corrupt former Republican members of Congress." nytimes.com/2020/12/22/us/…