A Few Thoughts on "Screw You, Marxists" Response from Texas

The Donald (WIN) ^ | 11 December 2020 | resistant

[Sarcasm Factory]

I just read the entire response as linked herein (with thanks to the stickied post from Harper42190). It's a masterpiece of avoiding reliance on specific charges of ballot fraud while repeatedly body-slamming the defendants for that exact electoral fraud. The based lawyers representing Texas have managed the difficult but evidently legally necessary feat of squaring the circle. ^_^

https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf

BTW, while I'm not a lawyer or paralegal myself, I've written fairly complex legal pages in clear, accessible language for clients who were themselves practicing lawyers. Make of that what you will. :-)

Perhaps it'd be interesting to point out a few specific passages that caught my attention and excited my admiration.

First, the powerful opening from the Introduction:

"Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief. An injunction should issue because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions."

Whomp! There it is — "The defendants are plugging their ears and singing, 'La-la-la, we know we're as wrong as gongs, but we should win anyway 'cause those based pedes are giant poopy-heads. La-la-la!'"

Second, another passage from that same Introduction:

"Third, Defendant States’ invocation of laches and standing evinces a cavalier unseriousness about the most cherished right in a democracy—the right to vote. Asserting that Texas does not raise serious issues is telling. Suggesting that Texas should have acted sooner misses the mark—the campaign to eviscerate state statutory ballot integrity provisions took months to plan and carry out yet Texas has had only weeks to detect wrongdoing, look for witnesses willing to speak, and marshal admissible evidence. Advantage to those who, for whatever reason, sought to destroy ballot integrity protections in the selection of our President."

Bam! The based lawyers for Texas very clearly point out the extreme hypocrisy of the Marxists and other enemies of America who would love to have unlimited months and years to plot, scheme, and plan to defraud an entire nation while at the same time squealing like diseased hogs over the heroic efforts of hundreds of pedes and a few dozen uncorrupted politicians and lawyers to perform miracles of data analysis and summarization in mere days or weeks.

Third, a passage from the Argument:

"Although Pennsylvania characterizes this action as a 'seditious abuse of the judicial process,' Penn. Br. 2, and 'uniquely unserious,' id. at 11, Texas seeks to enforce the right that preserves all others in a democratic republic: suffrage. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62 (1964). Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition, moving this Court to cure grave threats to Texas’s right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition."

Pow! Based Texas lawyers dissect this peculiarly offensive bit of propaganda from the swarming masses of two-legged rats in Pennsylvania into a shrieking puddle of bones and flayed, bloody flesh. Our sharp legal eagles carefully note that we live in a "democratic republic" while hammering home the central point that if equal suffrage fails for the (Republican) voters of Texas and by extension every other state in the country, then the whole idea of suffrage is meaningless, a savage mockery of the valiant ideals for which so many Americans have fought and given their own irreplaceable lives.

I could go on and on, but this awesome combination of pedantic legalisms and bare-knuckles street brawling from extraordinarily smart, determined lawyers will live forever in the annums of Constitutional law. MAGA!

[Sarcasm Factory]

Could have included a few more outstanding passages, but there it is.

[gloryblaze]

So far, I have only read the Wisconsin issue, but I agree it was an

...awesome combination of pedantic legalisms and bare-knuckles street brawling from extraordinarily smart, determined lawyers will live forever in the annums of Constitutional law.

An, I'll add that it was convincing. But then I really was really, really ripe for convincing.

[NEMDF]

OK well are you being sarcastic? Or series? Just wondering. Thank you for your insight.

[Sarcasm Factory]

No, I’m super-cereal. King Vitamin-grade cereal! :-)

[SharpRightTurn]

Anyone have any idea of what a “based lawyer” is?

[Sarcasm Factory]

In the odd parlance of the “pedes” (apparently “nimble centipedes”) of The Donald, “based” seems to mean “reality-based.” One almost needs a translator to follow some of the conversations there. ^^;

[teeman8r]

thanks for the commentary and the information... so much disinformation, this is a breath of unmasked air.

keep them coming

t

[SharpRightTurn]

“In the odd parlance of the “pedes” (apparently “nimble centipedes”) of The Donald, “based” seems to mean “reality-based.” One almost needs a translator to follow some of the conversations there.”

Thanks. Thanks, too, for the definition for “pedes” with which I was also unfamiliar.